3,120,204 research outputs found

    of the Carcinogen Identification Committee of the OEHHA Science Advisory

    Get PDF
    65, California Health and Safety Code 25249.5 et seq.) requires that the Governor cause to be published a list of those chemicals “known to the state” to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The Act specifies that “a chemical is known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity...if in the opinion of the state’s qualified experts the chemical has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. ” The lead agency for implementin

    Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

    Get PDF
    Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Methods: A Markov model was developed to model cost-effectiveness over 25 years. Data on the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Data on costs came from a systematic review of economic evaluations and from published sources. The outcomes of the model were presented as the incremental cost per life year gained and using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) to illustrate the likelihood that a treatment was cost-effective at various threshold values for society’s willingness to pay for an additional life year. Results: Laparoscopic surgery was on average £300 more costly and slightly less effective than open surgery and had a 30% chance of being cost-effective if society is willing to pay £30,000 for a life year. One interpretation of the available data suggests equal survival and disease-free survival. Making this assumption, laparoscopic surgery had a greater chance of being considered cost-effective. Presenting the results as incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) made no difference to the results, as utility data were poor. Evidence suggests short-term benefits following laparoscopic repair. This benefit would have to be at least 0.01 of a QALY for laparoscopic surgery to be considered cost-effective. Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is likely to be associated with short-term quality of life benefits, similar long-term outcomes and an additional £300 per patient. A judgement is required as to whether the short-term benefits are worth this extra cost.Peer reviewedAuthor versio

    Health impact assessment

    Get PDF

    Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

    Get PDF
    Objective Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000. Method Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated. Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain). Conclusion The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.Department of Health, National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health DirectoratesPeer reviewedAuthor versio

    Supporting health impact assessment in practice

    Get PDF
    Health impact assessment (HIA) is a process that aims to predict potential positive and negative effects of project, programme or policy proposals on health and health inequalities. It is recommended by national government and internationally. Supporting health impact assessment is one of the roles of English Public Health Observatories.The few centres in England with accredited health impact training centres have inadequate resources to meet demand. Currently, the London Health Observatory is providing the bulk of the training nationally. Some Public Health Observatories are currently investigating the preferences for support of those commissioning or conducting health impact assessment within their regions.The availability of published guidance on how to conduct health impact assessments has increased substantially over the past few years. The Department of Health has funded a research project led by the London Health Observatory to develop advice for reviewing evidence for use in health impact assessment. Completed health impact assessments can be useful resources. Evaluation of the process and impact of health impact assessment is important in order to demonstrate its usefulness and to learn lessons for the future.The focus for Public Health Observatories is to train and support others to conduct health impact assessment according to good practice, rather than undertaking health impact assessments themselves. The aim is to create sufficient skilled capacity around the country to undertake health impact assessments. The London Health Observatory plans to share its support models and to roll out a train the trainer programme nationally to enable effective local delivery of their national health impact assessment programme. (c) 2005 The Royal Institue of Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

    Spirituality, mental health nursing & assessment

    Get PDF
    Ruth Elliott critically examines the literature regarding mental health nursing assessment and spiritual beliefs and considers whether a person’s spiritual belief influences the outcome of a mental health nursing assessment and to identify possible strategies to overcome assessment bias or prejudic

    Institutionalizing health impact assessment in London as a public health tool for increasing synergy between policies in other areas

    Get PDF
    Objectives: To describe the background to the inclusion of health impact assessment (HIA) in the development process for the London mayoral strategies, the HIA processes developed, how these evolved, and the role of HIA in identifying synergies between and conflicting priorities of different strategies.Study design: Case series.Methods: Early HIAs had just a few weeks for the whole HIA process. A rapid appraisal approach was developed. Stages included: scoping, reviewing published evidence, a stakeholder workshop, drafting a report, review of the report by the London Health Commission, and submission of the final report to the Mayor. The process evolved as more assessments were conducted. More recently, an integrated impact assessment (IIA) method has been developed that fuses the key aspects of this HIA method with sustainability assessment, strategic environmental assessment and equalities assessment.Results: Whilst some of the early strategy drafts encompassed some elements of health, health was not a priority. Conducting HIAs was important both to ensure that the strategies reflected health concerns and to raise awareness about health and its determinants within the Greater London Authority (GLA). HIA recommendations were useful for identifying synergies and conflicts between strategies. HIA can be successfully integrated into other impact assessment processes.Conclusions: The HIAs ensured that health became more integral to the strategies and increased understanding of determinants of health and how the GLA impacts on health and health inequalities. Inclusion of HIA within IIA ensures that health and health inequalities impacts are considered robustly within statutory impact assessments. (C) 2010 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
    corecore