Our latest research, all in one place. Browse our collection of journal articles, reports and conference proceedings to see how we’re contributing to HEOR research. Remember to:
Promoting 'care closer to home' for ill children is a policy and practice objective internationally. Progress towards this goal is hampered by a perceived lack of evidence on effectiveness and costs. The aim of the work reported here was to establish the strength of current international evidence on the effectiveness and costs of paediatric home care by updating and extending an earlier systematic review. A systematic review following Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines involved updating electronic searches, and extending them to cover paediatric home care for short-term acute conditions. Twenty-one databases were searched from 1990 to April 2007. Hand searching was also carried out. Pairs of team members, guided by an algorithm, selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs), other comparative studies and studies including health economics data. A third reviewer resolved any disagreements. The quality of RCTs was assessed, but a 'best-evidence' approach was taken overall. Data were extracted into specifically designed spreadsheets and a second team member checked all data. Narrative synthesis was used throughout. This paper reports findings from RCTs and studies with health economics data. In total, 16 570 publications were identified after de-duplication. Eleven new RCTs (reported in 17 papers) and 20 papers with health economics data were included and reviewed. Evidence on costs and effectiveness of paediatric home care has not grown substantially since the previous review, but this updated review adds weight to the conclusion that it can deliver equivalent clinical outcomes for children and not impose a greater burden on families. Indeed, in some cases, there is evidence of reduced burden and costs for families compared with hospital care. There is also growing evidence, albeit based on weaker evidence, that paediatric home care may reduce costs for health services, particularly for children with complex and long-term needs.
OBJECTIVE: Hearing impairment in children across the world constitutes a particularly serious obstacle to their optimal development and education, including language acquisition. Around 0.5-6 in every 1000 neonates and infants have congenital or early childhood onset sensorineural deafness or severe-to-profound hearing impairment, with significant consequences. Therefore, early detection is a vitally important element in providing appropriate support for deaf and hearing-impaired babies that will help them enjoy equal opportunities in society alongside all other children. This analysis estimates the costs and effectiveness of various interventions to screen infants at risk of hearing impairment.
METHODS: The economic analysis used a decision tree approach to determine the cost-effectiveness of newborn hearing screening strategies. Two unique models were built to capture different strategic screening decisions. Firstly, the cost-effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) was compared to selective screening of newborns with risk factors. Secondly, the cost-effectiveness of providing a one-stage screening process vs. a two-stage screening process was investigated.
RESULTS: Two countries, the United Kingdom and India, were used as case studies to illustrate the likely cost outcomes associated with the various strategies to diagnose hearing loss in infants. In the UK, the universal strategy incurs a further cost of approximately £2.3 million but detected an extra 63 cases. An incremental cost per case detected of £36,181 was estimated. The estimated economic burden was substantially higher in India when adopting a universal strategy due to the higher baseline prevalence of hearing loss. The one-stage screening strategy accumulated an additional 13,480 and 13,432 extra cases of false-positives, in the UK and India respectively when compared to a two-stage screening strategy. This represented increased costs by approximately £1.3 million and INR 34.6 million.
CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of a screening intervention was largely dependent upon two key factors. As would be expected, the cost (per patient) of the intervention drives the model substantially, with higher costs leading to higher cost-effectiveness ratios. Likewise, the baseline prevalence (risk) of hearing impairment also affected the results. In scenarios where the baseline risk was low, the intervention was less likely to be cost-effective compared to when the baseline risk was high.
No abstract available
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of psychological distress by patient report is necessary to meet patients' needs throughout the cancer journey. We have previously developed an item bank to assess psychological distress but not evaluated it for cancer survivors. Our first aim in this study was to test whether we could extend our item bank to include cancer survivors. The second aim was to examine whether the item bank could assess positive affect as a single construct alongside negative psychological symptoms.
METHODS: Responses from 1315 cancer survivors to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) were considered for inclusion in a pre-existing item bank created from a heterogeneous sample of 4914 cancer patients. Differential item functioning (DIF) was used to assess whether HADS responses drawn from the two samples were equivalent. Common-item equating was used to anchor the shared (HADS) items, whilst the PANAS items were added. Item fit was evaluated at each stage, and misfitting items were removed. Unidimensionality was assessed with a principal components factor analysis.
RESULTS: The DIF analysis did not reveal any differences between the HADS item locations from the two samples. Three misfitting PANAS items were removed, resulting in a final unidimensional bank of 80 items with good internal reliability (a = 0.85).
CONCLUSION: The new item bank is valid for use across the cancer journey, including cancer survivors, and modestly improves the assessment of all levels of psychological distress and positive psychological function.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to redefine the optimal self-report symptoms of depression suitable for creation of an item bank that could be used in computer adaptive testing or to develop a simplified screening tool for DSM-V.
METHODS: Four hundred subjects (200 patients with primary depression and 200 non-depressed subjects), living in Iraqi Kurdistan were interviewed. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) was used to define the presence of major depression (DSM-IV criteria). We examined symptoms of depression using four well-known scales delivered in Kurdish. The Partial Credit Model was applied to each instrument. Common-item equating was subsequently used to create an item bank and differential item functioning (DIF) explored for known subgroups.
RESULTS: A symptom level Rasch analysis reduced the original 45 items to 24 items of the original after the exclusion of 21 misfitting items. A further six items (CESD13 and CESD17, HADS-D4, HADS-D5 and HADS-D7, and CDSS3 and CDSS4) were removed due to misfit as the items were added together to form the item bank, and two items were subsequently removed following the DIF analysis by diagnosis (CESD20 and CDSS9, both of which were harder to endorse for women). Therefore the remaining optimal item bank consisted of 17 items and produced an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.987. Using a bank restricted to the optimal nine items revealed only minor loss of accuracy (AUC = 0.989, sensitivity 96%, specificity 95%). Finally, when restricted to only four items accuracy was still high (AUC was still 0.976; sensitivity 93%, specificity 96%).
CONCLUSIONS: An item bank of 17 items may be useful in computer adaptive testing and nine or even four items may be used to develop a simplified screening tool for DSM-V major depressive disorder (MDD). Further examination of this item bank should be conducted in different cultural settings.
This randomized clinical study assessed efficacy in terms of color change and production of sensitivity after home whitening alone and home whitening supplemented with in-office bleaching. Thirty-six subjects (aged 19 to 58 years) were randomly assigned to one of three different treatment groups: (A) home whitening for two weeks, with 16% carbamide peroxide in custom-made trays; (B) home whitening for two weeks, with 16% carbamide peroxide in custom-made trays supplemented with in-office bleaching with 9% hydrogen peroxide (in the same trays); or (C) home whitening for two weeks, with 16% carbamide peroxide in custom-made trays supplemented with in-office bleaching with 27% hydrogen peroxide (in the same trays). The efficacy of tooth whitening was assessed by determining the color change associated with the six upper anterior teeth using a value-ordered shade guide. Sensitivity was self-assessed with the use of a visual analog scale (VAS). Tooth shade and sensitivity were assessed at the following points: pretreatment; immediately after the home whitening phase; immediately after the in-office phase (groups B and C); and one week post active treatment. At the one week follow-up visit, subjects in group A had a mean (SD) color change of 5.9 (1.83) (teeth were lighter) immediately after cessation of treatment (p<0.01). Subjects in groups B and C experienced a greater change in mean (SD) shade immediately following their respective in-office treatments of 5.1 (1.53) and 5.4 (1.55). However, within one week, the shade of these teeth regressed to a similar degree to that achieved by subjects treated in group A. Overall, no significant difference in shade change or sensitivity was produced between the three groups. Investigators concluded that the in-office element of combined whitening produced no significant difference in tooth color or sensitivity when compared with home whitening alone.
OBJECTIVES: In the UK, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy (behind lung and breast cancer) with 37,514 cases registered in 2006: around two-thirds (23,384) in the colon and one-third (14,130) in the rectum. Treatment of cancers of the colon can vary considerably, but surgical resection is the mainstay of treatment for curative intent. Following surgical resection, there is a comprehensive assessment of the tumour, it's invasion characteristics and spread (tumour staging). A number of imaging modalities are used in the pre-operative staging of CRCs including; computerised tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound imaging and positron emission tomography (PET). This report examines the role of CT in combination with PET scanning (PET/CT 'hybrid' scan). The research objectives are: to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic impact of fluorine-18-deoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT for the pre-operative staging of primary, recurrent and metastatic cancer using systematic review methods; undertake probabilistic decision-analytic modelling (using Monte Carlo simulation); and conduct a value of information analysis to help inform whether or not there is potential worth in undertaking further research.
DATA SOURCES: For each aspect of the research - the systematic review, the handsearch study and the economic evaluation - a database was assembled from a comprehensive search for published and unpublished studies, which included database searches, reference lists search and contact with experts. In the systematic review prospective and retrospective patient series (diagnostic cohort) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. Both consecutive series and series that are not explicitly reported as consecutive were included.
REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers extracted all data and applied the criteria independently and resolved disagreements by discussion. Data to populate 2×2 contingency tables consisting of the number of true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives using the studies' own definitions were extracted, as were data relating to changes in management. Fourteen items from the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Patient-level data were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity with confidence intervals (CIs). Data were plotted graphically in forest plots. For the economic evaluation, economic models were designed for each of the disease states: primary, recurrent and metastatic. These were developed and populated based on a variety of information sources (in particular from published data sources) and literature, and in consultation with clinical experts.
RESULTS: The review found 30 studies that met the eligibility criteria. Only two small studies evaluated the use of FDG PET/CT in primary CRC, and there is insufficient evidence to support its routine use at this time. The use of FDG PET/CT for the detection of recurrent disease identified data from five retrospective studies from which a pooled sensitivity of 91% (95% CI 0.87% to 0.95%) and specificity of 91% (95% CI 0.85% to 0.95%) were observed. Pooled accuracy data from patients undergoing staging for suspected metastatic disease showed FDG PET/CT to have a pooled sensitivity of 91% (95% CI 87% to 94%) and a specificity of 76% (95% CI 58% to 88%), but the poor quality of the studies means the validity of the data may be compromised by several biases. The separate handsearch study did not yield any additional unique studies relevant to FDG PET/CT. Models for recurrent disease demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £21,409 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for rectal cancer, £6189 per QALY for colon cancer and £21,434 per QALY for metastatic disease. The value of handsearching to identify studies of less clearly defined or reported diagnostic tests is still to be investigated.
CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review found insufficient evidence to support the routine use of FDG PET/CT in primary CRC and only a small amount of evidence supporting its use in the pre-operative staging of recurrent and metastatic CRC, and, although FDG PET/CT was shown to change patient management, the data are divergent and the quality of research is generally poor. The handsearch to identify studies of less clearly defined or reported diagnostic tests did not find additional studies. The primary limitations in the economic evaluations were due to uncertainty and lack of available evidence from the systematic reviews for key parameters in each of the five models. In order to address this, a conservative approach was adopted in choosing DTA estimates for the model parameters. Probabilistic analyses were undertaken for each of the models, incorporating wide levels of uncertainty particularly for the DTA estimates. None of the economic models reported costsavings, but the approach adopted was conservative in order to determine more reliable results given the lack of current information. The economic evaluations conclude that FDG PET/CT as an add-on imaging device is cost-effective in the pre-operative staging of recurrent colon, recurrent rectal and metastatic disease but not in primary colon or rectal cancers. There would be value in undertaking an RCT with a concurrent economic evaluation to evaluate the therapeutic impact and cost-effectiveness of FDG PET/CT compared with conventional imaging (without PET) for the pre-operative staging of recurrent and metastatic CRC.
