865 resultados para Health technology evaluation
Resumo:
Objectives: To determine the best photographic surrogate markers for detecting sight-threatening macular oedema (MO) in people with diabetes attending UK national screening programmes. Design: A multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of 3170 patients with photographic signs of diabetic retinopathy visible within the macular region [exudates within two disc diameters, microaneurysms/dot haemorrhages (M/DHs) and blot haemorrhages (BHs)] who were recruited from seven study centres. Setting: All patients were recruited and imaged at one of seven study centres in Aberdeen, Birmingham, Dundee, Dunfermline, Edinburgh, Liverpool and Oxford. Participants: Subjects with features of diabetic retinopathy visible within the macular region attending one of seven diabetic retinal screening programmes. Interventions: Alternative referral criteria for suspected MO based on photographic surrogate markers; an optical coherence tomographic examination in addition to the standard digital retinal photograph. Main outcome measures: (1) To determine the best method to detect sight-threatening MO in people with diabetes using photographic surrogate markers. (2) Sensitivity and specificity estimates to assess the costs and consequences of using alternative strategies. (3) Modelled long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results: Prevalence of MO was strongly related to the presence of lesions and was roughly five times higher in subjects with exudates or BHs or more than two M/DHs within one disc diameter. Having worse visual acuity was associated with about a fivefold higher prevalence of MO. Current manual screening grading schemes that ignore visual acuity or the presence of M/DHs could be improved by taking these into account. Health service costs increase substantially with more sensitive/less specific strategies. A fully automated strategy, using the automated detection of patterns of photographic surrogate markers, is superior to all current manual grading schemes for detecting MO in people with diabetes. The addition of optical coherence tomography (OCT) to each strategy, prior to referral, results in a reduction in costs to the health service with no decrement in the number of MO cases detected. Conclusions: Compared with all current manual grading schemes, for the same sensitivity, a fully automated strategy, using the automated detection of patterns of photographic surrogate markers, achieves a higher specificity for detecting MO in people with diabetes, especially if visual acuity is included in the automated strategy. Overall, costs to the health service are likely to increase if more sensitive referral strategies are adopted over more specific screening strategies for MO, for only very small gains in QALYs. The addition of OCT to each screening strategy, prior to referral, results in a reduction in costs to the health service with no decrement in the number of MO cases detected. © Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2013.
Resumo:
Objective: Heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) is a common problem, yet evidence is limited to inform therapeutic decisions.We compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system(LNG-IUS) to usual medical treatment in a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care. Methods: We randomly assigned 571 women consulting their primary care providers with menorrhagia to LNG-IUS or to usual medical treatment as clinically appropriate (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen/progestogen or progestogen only). The primary outcome was a patient-reported measure ofimpact of menorrhagia, the validated Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS), assessed over 2 years. Secondary measures included generic quality of life (SF-36), sexual activity and surgical intervention.Results MMAS scores improved from baseline in both the LNG-IUS and usual medical treatment groups by 6 months (mean increases 32.7 points versus 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001for both) and were maintained over 2 years, but improvements were significantly greater with LNG-IUS (mean between-group difference 13.4 points, 95%CI, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001).All domains of MMAS (practical difficulties, social life, family life,work/daily routine, psychological well being and physical health)improved significantly more with LNG-IUS, as were seven of the eight domains of SF-36. More women were still using LNG-IUSthan usual medical treatment at 2 years (64% versus 38%,P < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in surgical intervention rates or sexual activity scores. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions Among women presenting to primary care providers with menorrhagia, LNG-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment at reducing the impact of this problem on their quality of life. In practice therefore, conventional treatments, such as tranexamic and mefenamic acid, remain helpful choices in women for whom LNG-IUS is considered unsuitable, or due to individual preference. For other women, LNG-IUS can be confidently recommended as an effective initial medical therapy for menorrhagia. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme (project number 02/06/02)
Resumo:
Objective Based on the system of reference and counter-reference and comprehensiveness in oral health care, we aimed to examine ways of refering users to Specialized Dental Care Centers (SDCC) and the interface between them and Primary Care. Methods This is a cross-sectional study carried out with users and dentists of SDCC in a metropolitan region of Northeast of Brazil. Analyses were descriptive, and the association test was done with chi-square. Results Six forms of entry to specialized service were identified: free demand (13.8 %) and reference by the Primary Care dentist (63.2 %) were most frequent. Users referred by the basic health unit dentist had more interest in making a counter-reference than the others (p<0.001, PR=4.65, 95 % CI: 2.74 to 7.91), while individuals without this referral had 1.49 times more difficulty obtaining care (95 % CI: 1.02 to 2.17). Referral procedures are a decisive factor for counter-references. However, the high demand for primary care services and the short supply these services can offer in the face of needs make SDCC performance difficult. Conclusion The analysis of oral health practices from the perspective of network modeling points to the service's need to establish protocols for regulation in a bid to improve access to and the quality of care provided.
Resumo:
Objective Based on the system of reference and counter-reference and comprehensiveness in oral health care, we aimed to examine ways of refering users to Specialized Dental Care Centers (SDCC) and the interface between them and Primary Care. Methods This is a cross-sectional study carried out with users and dentists of SDCC in a metropolitan region of Northeast of Brazil. Analyses were descriptive, and the association test was done with chi-square. Results Six forms of entry to specialized service were identified: free demand (13.8 %) and reference by the Primary Care dentist (63.2 %) were most frequent. Users referred by the basic health unit dentist had more interest in making a counter-reference than the others (p<0.001, PR=4.65, 95 % CI: 2.74 to 7.91), while individuals without this referral had 1.49 times more difficulty obtaining care (95 % CI: 1.02 to 2.17). Referral procedures are a decisive factor for counter-references. However, the high demand for primary care services and the short supply these services can offer in the face of needs make SDCC performance difficult. Conclusion The analysis of oral health practices from the perspective of network modeling points to the service's need to establish protocols for regulation in a bid to improve access to and the quality of care provided.
Resumo:
Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements This review is one of a series of systematic reviews for the ROMEO project (Review Of MEn and Obesity), funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA Project 09/127/01; Systematic reviews and integrated report on the quantitative and qualitative evidence base for the management of obesity in men http://www.hta.ac.uk/2545). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health. HERU, HSRU and NMAHP are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors accept full responsibility for this publication. We would also like to thank the Men's Health Forums of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales: Tim Street, Paula Carroll, Colin Fowler and David Wilkins. We also thank Kate Jolly for further information about the Lighten Up trial.
Resumo:
Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements This review is one of a series of systematic reviews for the ROMEO project (Review Of MEn and Obesity), funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA Project 09/127/01; Systematic reviews and integrated report on the quantitative and qualitative evidence base for the management of obesity in men http://www.hta.ac.uk/2545). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health. HERU, HSRU and NMAHP are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors accept full responsibility for this publication. We would also like to thank the Men's Health Forums of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales: Tim Street, Paula Carroll, Colin Fowler and David Wilkins. We also thank Kate Jolly for further information about the Lighten Up trial.
Resumo:
Funding acknowledgement This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (10/31/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment.. Further information available at: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/103102 This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. NIHR were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data or in the writing of the articles for publication.
Resumo:
Funding acknowledgement This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (10/31/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment.. Further information available at: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/103102 This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. NIHR were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data or in the writing of the articles for publication.
Resumo:
The VUE study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 11/129/183).
Resumo:
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 4, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Resumo:
Acknowledgements Thank you to all the participants who agreed to take part in the trial. This study was supported NHS Research Scotland (NRS), through Chief Scientist Office (CSO) and the Scottish Mental Health Research Network, and the Clinical Research Network-Mental Health. We are grateful to the Psychosis Research Unit (PRU) Service User Reference Group (SURG) for their consultation regarding the design of the study and contribution to the developments of study related materials. We are grateful to our Independent Trial Steering Committee and Independent Data Monitoring Committee for provided oversight of the trial. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme (project number10/101/02) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. Visit the HTA programme website for further project information. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.
Resumo:
Tecnologia em saúde: Aplicação de conhecimento e competências sob a forma de dispositivos médicos, medicamentos, vacinas, procedimentos e sistemas desenvolvidos para resolver um problema de saúde e melhorar a qualidade de vida. Classificação das TS - 1. Natureza material: medicamentos, equipamentos, procedimentos médicos e cirúrgicos, sistemas de suporte, sistemas organizacionais e de gestão. 2. Propósito: prevenção, diagnóstico, tratamento, reabilitação. 3. Estadio de difusão: futura, experimental, investigacional, estabelecida, obsoleta. Como sabemos que uma tecnologia tem melhores resultados clínicos ou se causa mais danos do que benefícios? Efetividade clínica e económica.
Resumo:
Introduction: Patients who survive an intensive care unit admission frequently suffer physical and psychological morbidity for many months after discharge. Current rehabilitation pathways are often fragmented and little is known about the optimum method of promoting recovery. Many patients suffer reduced quality of life. Methods and analysis: The authors plan a multicentre randomised parallel group complex intervention trial with concealment of group allocation from outcome assessors. Patients who required more than 48 h of mechanical ventilation and are deemed fit for intensive care unit discharge will be eligible. Patients with primary neurological diagnoses will be excluded. Participants will be randomised into one of the two groups: the intervention group will receive standard ward-based care delivered by the NHS service with additional treatment by a specifically trained generic rehabilitation assistant during ward stay and via telephone contact after hospital discharge and the control group will receive standard ward-based care delivered by the current NHS service. The intervention group will also receive additional information about their critical illness and access to a critical care physician. The total duration of the intervention will be from randomisation to 3 months postrandomisation. The total duration of follow-up will be 12 months from randomisation for both groups. The primary outcome will be the Rivermead Mobility Index at 3 months. Secondary outcomes will include measures of physical and psychological morbidity and function, quality of life and survival over a 12-month period. A health economic evaluation will also be undertaken. Groups will be compared in relation to primary and secondary outcomes; quantitative analyses will be supplemented by focus groups with patients, carers and healthcare workers. Ethics and dissemination: Consent will be obtained from patients and relatives according to patient capacity. Data will be analysed according to a predefined analysis plan.
Resumo:
Importance: critical illness results in disability and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL), but the optimum timing and components of rehabilitation are uncertain. Objective: to evaluate the effect of increasing physical and nutritional rehabilitation plus information delivered during the post–intensive care unit (ICU) acute hospital stay by dedicated rehabilitation assistants on subsequent mobility, HRQOL, and prevalent disabilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: a parallel group, randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment at 2 hospitals in Edinburgh, Scotland, of 240 patients discharged from the ICU between December 1, 2010, and January 31, 2013, who required at least 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Analysis for the primary outcome and other 3-month outcomes was performed between June and August 2013; for the 6- and 12-month outcomes and the health economic evaluation, between March and April 2014. Interventions: during the post-ICU hospital stay, both groups received physiotherapy and dietetic, occupational, and speech/language therapy, but patients in the intervention group received rehabilitation that typically increased the frequency of mobility and exercise therapies 2- to 3-fold, increased dietetic assessment and treatment, used individualized goal setting, and provided greater illness-specific information. Intervention group therapy was coordinated and delivered by a dedicated rehabilitation practitioner. Main Outcomes and Measures: the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) (range 0-15) at 3 months; higher scores indicate greater mobility. Secondary outcomes included HRQOL, psychological outcomes, self-reported symptoms, patient experience, and cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up (completed in February 2014). Results: median RMI at randomization was 3 (interquartile range [IQR], 1-6) and at 3 months was 13 (IQR, 10-14) for the intervention and usual care groups (mean difference, −0.2 [95% CI, −1.3 to 0.9; P = .71]). The HRQOL scores were unchanged by the intervention (mean difference in the Physical Component Summary score, −0.1 [95% CI, −3.3 to 3.1; P = .96]; and in the Mental Component Summary score, 0.2 [95% CI, −3.4 to 3.8; P = .91]). No differences were found for self-reported symptoms of fatigue, pain, appetite, joint stiffness, or breathlessness. Levels of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress were similar, as were hand grip strength and the timed Up & Go test. No differences were found at the 6- or 12-month follow-up for any outcome measures. However, patients in the intervention group reported greater satisfaction with physiotherapy, nutritional support, coordination of care, and information provision. Conclusions and Relevance: post-ICU hospital-based rehabilitation, including increased physical and nutritional therapy plus information provision, did not improve physical recovery or HRQOL, but improved patient satisfaction with many aspects of recovery.
Resumo:
Einleitung: In Deutschland leiden derzeit etwa eine Million Menschen an einer Demenzerkrankung. Aufgrund der demografischen Entwicklung ist mit einem deutlichen Anstieg der Häufigkeit solcher Erkrankungen in den kommenden Jahren zu rechnen. Demenz ist in höherem Alter die häufigste Ursache von Pflegebedürftigkeit. Da diese Krankheiten in der Regel nicht heilbar sind, liegt der Fokus der Pflege auf der Verzögerung des Voranschreitens der Erkrankung sowie der Aufrechterhaltung von Funktionsfähigkeit und Lebensqualität der Betroffenen. Fragestellung: Wie ist die Evidenz für pflegerische Konzepte für Patienten mit Demenz hinsichtlich gebräuchlicher Endpunkte wie kognitive Funktionsfähigkeit, Fähigkeit zur Durchführung von Aktivitäten des täglichen Lebens, Lebensqualität, Sozialverhalten? Wie ist die Kosten-Effektivität der betrachteten Pflegekonzepte zu bewerten? Welche ethischen, sozialen oder juristischen Aspekte werden in diesem Kontext diskutiert? Methoden: Auf Basis einer systematischen Literaturrecherche werden randomisierte kontrollierte Studien (RCT) mit mindestens 30 Teilnehmern zu folgenden Pflegekonzepten eingeschlossen: Validation/emotionsorientierte Pflege, Ergotherapie, sensorische Stimulation, Entspannungsverfahren, Realitätsorientierung und Reminiszenz. Die Studien müssen ab 1997 (für den ökonomischen Teil ab 1990) in deutscher oder englischer Sprache publiziert worden sein. Ergebnisse: Insgesamt 20 Studien erfüllen die Einschlusskriterien. Davon befassen sich drei Studien mit der Validation/emotionsorientierte Pflege, fünf Studien mit der Ergotherapie, sieben Studien mit verschiedenen Varianten sensorischer Stimulation, je zwei Studien mit der Realitätsorientierung und der Reminiszenz und eine Studie mit einem Entspannungsverfahren. Keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen Interventions- und Kontrollgruppe berichten zwei von drei Studien zur Validation/emotionsorientierten Pflege, zwei von fünf Studien zur Ergotherapie, drei von sieben Studien zur sensorischen Stimulation, beide Studien zur Reminiszenz, und die Studie zur Entspannung. Von den verbleibenden zehn Studien berichten sieben teilweise positive Ergebnisse zugunsten der Intervention und drei Studien (Ergotherapie, Aromatherapie, Musik/Massage) berichten positive Effekte der Intervention hinsichtlich aller erhobenen Zielkriterien. Sechs Publikationen berichten ökonomische Ergebnisse von Pflegemaßnahmen. Eine Studie berichtet Zusatzkosten von 16 GBP (24,03 Euro (2006)) pro Patient pro Woche für Beschäftigungstherapie. Zwei weitere Veröffentlichungen geben inkrementelle Kosten von 24,30 USD (25,62 Euro (2006)) pro gewonnenen Mini-mental-state-examination-(MMSE)-Punkt pro Monat bzw. 1.380.000 ITL (506,21 Euro (2006)) pro gewonnenen MMSE-Punkt an. Zwei Publikationen berichten über Mischinterventionen, wobei einmal die Zusatzkosten für ein Aktivitätsprogramm (1,13 USD (1,39 Euro (2006)) pro Tag pro Pflegebedürftigem) und einmal der zeitliche Mehraufwand für die Betreuung mobiler Demenzpatienten (durchschnittlich 45 Minuten zusätzliche Pflegezeit pro Tag) berichtet wird. Hinsichtlich ethisch-sozialer Aspekte wird vor allem die Selbstbestimmung von Demenzpatienten diskutiert. Aus einer Demenzdiagnose lässt sich danach nicht zwingend schließen, dass die Betroffenen nicht eigenständig über eine Studienteilnahme entscheiden können. Im juristischen Bereich versucht die Regierung mit dem Pflege-Weiterentwicklungsgesetz (PfWG) die finanzielle Lage und die Betreuung der Pflegenden und Gepflegten zu verbessern. Weitere Fragestellungen rechtlicher Natur betreffen die Geschäftsfähigkeit bzw. die rechtliche Vertretung sowie die Deliktfähigkeit von an Demenz erkrankten Personen. Diskussion: Es gibt nur wenige methodisch angemessene Studien zu den in diesem Bericht berücksichtigten pflegerischen Konzepten für Demenzkranke. Die Studien haben überwiegend kleine Fallzahlen, und weisen erhebliche methodische Unterschiede hinsichtlich der Einschlusskriterien, der Durchführung, und der erfassten Zielkriterien auf. Diese Heterogenität zeigt sich auch in den Ergebnissen: in der Hälfte der eingeschlossen Studien gibt es keine positiven Effekte der Intervention im Vergleich zur Kontrollgruppe. Die andere Hälfte der Studien berichtet zum Teil positive Effekte bezüglicher unterschiedlicher Zielkriterien. Die ökonomischen Studien sind methodisch und thematisch nicht dazu geeignet die aufgeworfenen Fragestellungen zu beantworten. Ethische, soziale und juristische Aspekte werden diskutiert, aber nicht systematisch im Rahmen von Studien erfasst. Schlussfolgerung: Basierend auf der derzeitigen Studienlage liegt für keines der untersuchten Pflegekonzepte ausreichende Evidenz vor. Fehlende Evdienz bedeutet in diesem Kontext jedoch nicht zwingend fehlende Wirksamkeit. Vielmehr sind weitere Studien zu diesem Thema notwendig. Wünschenswert wären insbesondere Studien, die in Deutschland unter den Rahmenbedingungen des hiesigen Ausbildungs- und Pflegesystems durchgeführt werden. Dies gilt auch für die gesundheitsökonomische Bewertung der Pflege