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:
AIM: To gather evidence to support the implementation of standard six of the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services (Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills 2004), which states that care should be provided as close to home as possible.
METHODS: A mixed methods study comprising of a systematic review, a national survey of provision of care closer to home (CCTH), four in-depth, qualitative case studies and a cost analysis.
FINDINGS: The systematic review suggests that CCTH is no less clinically effective than hospital care. Services identified by the survey fall into three distinct models of provision. Case study data show that families preferred CCTH, but staff face difficulties at organisational and practice levels. Cost analysis suggests there can be cost savings with CCTH, but several factors influence these.
CONCLUSION: CCTH may be an effective and feasible option for children and young people who are ill.
AIMS: To estimate the current and future economic burdens of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the UK.
METHODS: A top-down approach was used to estimate costs for 2010/2011 from aggregated data sets and literature. Prevalence and population data were used to project costs for 2035/2036. Direct health costs were estimated from data on diagnosis, lifestyle interventions, ongoing treatment and management, and complications. Indirect costs were estimated from data on mortality, sickness, presenteeism (potential loss of productivity among people who remain in work) and informal care.
RESULTS: Diabetes cost approximately £23.7bn in the UK in 2010/2011: £9.8bn in direct costs (£1bn for Type 1 diabetes and £8.8bn for Type 2 diabetes) and £13.9bn in indirect costs (£0.9bn and £13bn). In real terms, the 2035/2036 cost is estimated at £39.8bn: £16.9bn in direct costs (£1.8bn for Type 1 diabetes and £15.1bn for Type 2 diabetes) and £22.9bn in indirect costs (£2.4bn and £20.5bn). Sensitivity analysis applied to the direct costs produced a range of costs: between £7.9bn and £11.7bn in 2010/2011 and between £13.8bn and £20bn in 2035/2036. Diabetes currently accounts for approximately 10% of the total health resource expenditure and is projected to account for around 17% in 2035/2036.
CONCLUSIONS: Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes are prominent diseases in the UK and are a significant economic burden. Data differentiating between the costs of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes are sparse. Complications related to the diseases account for a substantial proportion of the direct health costs. As prevalence increases, the cost of treating complications will grow if current care regimes are maintained.
OBJECTIVE: In the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study (MMIX), zoledronic acid (ZOL) 4 mg 3-4/week reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs), increased progression free survival (PFS), and prolonged overall survival (OS), compared with clodronic acid (CLO) 1600 mg daily, in 1970 patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).
METHODS: An economic model was used to project PFS, OS, the incidence of SREs and adverse events and expected lifetime healthcare costs for patients with newly-diagnosed MM who are alternatively assumed to receive ZOL or CLO. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of ZOL vs CLO was calculated as the ratio of the difference in cost to the difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model inputs were based on results of MMIX and published sources.
RESULTS: Compared with CLO, treatment with ZOL increases QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of £1653, yielding an ICER of £5443 per QALY gained. If the threshold ICER is £20,000 per QALY, the estimated probability that ZOL is cost-effective is 90%.
LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this study is the lack of data on the effects of zoledronic acid on survival beyond the end of follow-up in the MMIX trial. However, cost-effectiveness was favourable even under the highly conservative scenario in which the timeframe of the model was limited to 5 years.
CONCLUSION: Compared with clodronic acid, zoledronic acid represents a cost-effective treatment alternative in patients with multiple myeloma.
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.
