Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: comparison of screening policies

BACKGROUND: Recommended screening policies for cervical cancer differ widely among countries with respect to targeted age range, screening interval, and total number of scheduled screening examinations (i.e., Pap smears). We compared the efficiency of cervical cancer-screening programs by performing a cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer-screening policies from high-income countries. METHODS: We used the microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) program to model and determine the costs and effects of almost 500 screening policies, some fictitious and some actual (i.e., recommended by national guidelines). The costs (in U.S. dollars) and effects (in years of life gained) were compared for each policy to identify the most efficient policies. RESULTS: There were 15 efficient screening policies (i.e., no alternative policy exists that results in more life-years gained for lower costs). For these policies, which considered two to 40 total scheduled examinations, the age range expanded gradually from 40-52 years to 20-80 years as the screening interval decreased from 12 to 1.5 years. For the efficient policies, the predicted gain in life expectancy ranged from 11.6 to 32.4 days, compared with a gain of 46 days if cervical cancer mortality were eliminated entirely. The average cost-effectiveness ratios increased from $6700 (for the longest screening interval) to$23 900 per life-year gained. For some countries, the recommended screening policies were close to efficient, but the cost-effectiveness could be improved by reducing the number of scheduled examinations, starting them at later ages, or lengthening the screening interval. CONCLUSIONS: The basis for the diversity in the screening policies among high-income countries does not appear to relate to the screening policies' cost-effectiveness ratios, which are highly sensitive to the number of Pap smears offered during a lifetime

The implementation of value-based healthcare: a scoping review

Background: The aim of this study was to identify and summarize how value-based healthcare (VBHC) is conceptualized in the literature and implemented in hospitals. Furthermore, an overview was created of the effects of both the implementation of VBHC and the implementation strategies used.Methods: A scoping review was conducted by searching online databases for articles published between January 2006 and February 2021. Empirical as well as non-empirical articles were included.Results: 1729 publications were screened and 62 were used for data extraction. The majority of the articles did not specify a conceptualization of VBHC, but only conceptualized the goals of VBHC or the concept of value. Most hospitals implemented only one or two components of VBHC, mainly the measurement of outcomes and costs or Integrated Practice Units (IPUs). Few studies examined effects. Implementation strategies were described rarely, and were evaluated even less.Conclusions: VBHC has a high level of interpretative variability and a common conceptualization of VBHC is therefore urgently needed. VBHC was proposed as a shift in healthcare management entailing six reinforcing steps, but hospitals have not implemented VBHC as an integrative strategy. VBHC implementation and effectiveness could benefit from the interdisciplinary collaboration between healthcare and management science.The politics and administration of institutional chang

Cost-effectiveness of cardiac telerehabilitation with relapse prevention for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease in the Netherlands

IMPORTANCE Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) has been found to be a safe and beneficial alternative to traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and might be associated with higher participation rates by reducing barriers to CR use. However, implementation of CTR interventions remains low, which may be owing to a lack of cost-effectiveness analyses of data from large-scale randomized clinical trials.OBJECTIVE To assess the cost-effectiveness of CTR with relapse prevention compared with centerbased CR among patients with coronary artery disease.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This economic evaluation performed a cost-utility analysis of data from the SmartCare-CAD (Effects of Cardiac Telerehabilitation in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Using a Personalized Patient-Centred ICT Platform) randomized clinical trial. The costeffectiveness and utility of 3 months of cardiac telerehabilitation followed by 9 months of relapse prevention were compared with the cost-effectiveness of traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation. The analysis included 300 patients with stable coronary artery disease who received care at a CR center serving 2 general hospitals in the Netherlands between May 23, 2016, and July 26, 2018. All patients were entering phase 2 of outpatient CR and were followed up for 1 year (until August 14, 2019). Data were analyzed from September 21, 2020, to September 24, 2021.INTERVENTION After baseline measurements were obtained, participants were randomly assigned on a 1:1 ratio to receive CTR (intervention group) or center-based CR (control group) using computerized block randomization. After 6 supervised center-based training sessions, patients in the intervention group continued training at home using a heart rate monitor and accelerometer. Patients uploaded heart rate and physical activity data and discussed their progress during a weekly video consultation with their physical therapist. After 3 months, weekly coaching was concluded, and on-demand coaching was initiated for relapse prevention; patients were instructed to continue using their wearable sensors and were contacted in cases of nonadherence to the intervention or reduced exercise or physical activity volumes.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Quality-adjusted life-years were assessed using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level survey (EQ-5D-5L) and the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), and cardiac-associated health care costs and non-health care costs were measured by health care consumption, productivity, and informal care questionnaires (the Medical Consumption Questionnaire, the Productivity Cost Questionnaire, and the Valuation of Informal Care Questionnaire) designed by the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment. Costs were converted to 2020 price levels (in euros) using the Dutch consumer price index (to convert to US dollars, euro values were multiplied by 1.142, which was the mean exchange rate in 2020).RESULTS Among 300 patients (266 men [88.7%]), the mean (SD) age was 60.7 (9.5) years. The quality of life among patients receiving CTR vs center-based CR was comparable during the study according to the results of both utility measures (mean difference on EQ-5D-5L: -0.004; P =.82; mean difference on EQ-VAS: -0.001; P =.92). Intervention costs were significantly higher for CTR (mean [SE], (sic)224 [(sic)4] [$256 ($4)]) compared with center-based CR (mean [SE], (sic)156 [(sic)5] [$178 ($6)]; P <.001); however, no difference in overall cardiac health care costs was observed between CTR (mean [SE], (sic)4787 [(sic)503] [$5467 ($574)] and center-based CR (mean [SE], (sic)5507 [(sic)659] [$6289 ($753)]; P =.36). From a societal perspective, CTR was associated with lower costs compared with center-based CR (mean [SE], (sic)20 495 [(sic)2751] [$23 405 ($3142)] vs (sic)24 381 [(sic)3613] [$27 843 ($4126)], respectively), although this difference was not statistically significant (-(sic)3887 [-$ 4439]; P =.34).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this economic evaluation, a CTR intervention with relapse prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared with center-based CR, suggesting that CTR maybe used as an alternative intervention for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. These results add to the evidence base in favor of CTR and may increase the implementation of CTR interventions in clinical practice.Analysis and support of clinical decision makin

Measuring positive health: concurrent and factorial validity based on a representative Dutch sample

The definition of health has been shifting from disease absence to physical, emotional and social well-being. To demedicalise societal problems, the term Positive Health (PH) was introduced-a concept focused on the ability to adapt and to self-manage, in the face of physical, emotional and social challenges. The concept of PH receives broad attention, among others because a PH dialogue tool is intensively being used as a communication instrument while reflecting on patients' health, but a PH measurement instrument is not yet fully established. Recently, however, a 17-item PH measurement model was proposed. In this paper, a factor analysis and regression analyses were performed to test the factorial validity and concurrent validity of this PH measurement model based on a representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 1016, 50.0% women; age: from 15 until 39 = 29.8%, from 40 until 65 = 43.0%, older than 65 = 27.2%; education levels: low = 28.7%, medium = 42.6%, high = 28.7%). These tests are crucial to understand how well the PH measurement model is suitable as a measurement instrument. The factor analysis provided support for the factorial validity of the proposed PH measurement model. When comparing the proposed PH measurement model with domains of other measurements of health (i.e. BRS, HR-SWB, ICECAP, and EQ5D), to test the concurrent validity, the model explained more than half of the variance in measurements of the domains happiness (R-2 = 0.60) and overall self-rated health (R-2 = 0.57), but explained less than a quarter of the variance in measurements of autonomy (R-2 = 0.17 / R-2 = 0.13), personal growth (R-2 = 0.21), stability (R-2 = 0.20), self-care (R-2 = 0.15), and resilience (R-2 = 0.24). Two of the six domains of the PH measurement model-mental functioning and daily functioning-were weakly related to the other measurements of health. The results of this study imply that the PH measurement model is suitable to measure multiple dimensions of health. They also suggest that the PH measurement model may not be an encompassing measure for the concepts measured through other health measurements and might explain variance in health beyond these other measurements.Prevention, Population and Disease management (PrePoD)Public Health and primary car

Long-term quality of life and cost-effectiveness of treatment of partial thickness burns: A randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel vs silver sulfadiazine (FLAM study)

The clinical effectiveness and scar quality of the randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) for treatment of partial thickness burns were previously reported. Enzyme alginogel did not lead to faster wound healing (primary outcome) or less scar formation. In the current study, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL), costs, and cost-effectiveness of enzyme alginogel compared with SSD in the treatment of partial thickness burns were studied. HRQoL was evaluated using the Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief (BSHS-B) and the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire 1 week before discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months postburn. Costs were studied from a societal perspective (health care and nonhealth-care costs) for a follow-up period of 1 year. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and comparing differences in societal costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) at 1 year postburn. Forty-one patients were analyzed in the enzyme alginogel group and 48 patients in the SSD group. None o

Ruling out acute coronary syndrome in primary care with a clinical decision rule and a capillary, high-sensitive troponin I point of care test: study protocol of a diagnostic RCT in the Netherlands (POB HELP)

Introduction Chest pain is a common reason for consultation in primary care. To rule out acute coronary syndrome (ACS), general practitioners (GP) refer 40%-70% of patients with chest pain to the emergency department (ED). Only 10%-20% of those referred, are diagnosed with ACS. A clinical decision rule, including a high-sensitive cardiac troponin-I point-of-care test (hs-cTnI-POCT), may safely rule out ACS in primary care. Being able to safely rule out ACS at the GP level reduces referrals and thereby alleviates the burden on the ED. Moreover, prompt feedback to the patients may reduce anxiety and stress.Methods and analysis The POB HELP study is a clustered randomised controlled diagnostic trial investigating the (cost-)effectiveness and diagnostic accuracy of a primary care decision rule for acute chest pain, consisting of the Marburg Heart Score combined with a hs-cTnI-POCT (limit of detection 1.6ng/L, 99th percentile 23ng/L, cut-off value between negative and positive used in this study 3.8ng/L). General practices are 2:1 randomised to the intervention group (clinical decision rule) or control group (regular care). In total 1500 patients with acute chest pain are planned to be included by GPs in three regions in The Netherlands. Primary endpoints are the number of hospital referrals and the diagnostic accuracy of the decision rule 24 hours, 6 weeks and 6 months after inclusion.Ethics and dissemination The medical ethics committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (the Netherlands) has approved this trial. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participating patients. The results of this trial will be disseminated in one main paper and additional papers on secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses.Cardiolog

Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: Randomized controlled trial

Abstract Objective To assess whether interspinous process device implantation is more effective in the short term than conventional surgical decompression for patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting Five neurosurgical centers (including one academic and four secondary level care centers) in the Netherlands. Participants 203 participants were referred to the Leiden-The Hague Spine Prognostic Study Group between October 2008 and September 2011; 159 participants with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two levels with an indication for surgery were randomized. Interventions 80 participants received an interspinous process device and 79 participants underwent spinal bony decompression. Main outcome measures The primary outcome at short term (eight weeks) and long term (one year) follow-up was the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire score. Repeated measurements were made to compare outcomes over time. Results At eight weeks, the success rate according to the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire for the interspinous process device group (63%, 95% confidence interval 51% to 73%) was not superior to that for