data_fig3A_suppfig1

Raw data from the pape

SUPPORTING THE ROUTINE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN THE NATIONAL CLINICAL AUDITS FOR ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS Work Package 1 - What patient reported outcome measures should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 National Clinical Audit programme? Appendix J, Dementia

EEPRU was approached by Jason Cox (Research and development (R&D) Division) to prepare a programme of research to support the appropriateness of, and use of, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected for the National Clinical Audit (NCA). The EEPRU programme was informed by a R&D template prepared by Simon Bennett, Steve Fairman and Keith Willett at National Health Service (NHS) England.The purpose of introducing PROMs into the NCA programme is to be able to 1) compare performance between providers and commissioners in the NHS, 2) compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative providers in delivering the specific services (i.e. linking outcomes and resource use), and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions and other changes in the NHS. The intention is to introduce PROMs across a range of conditions over the next 3 years commencing with 13 conditions in the 2014/15 NCA programme.The agreed research programme consists of 3 concurrent work packages (WP) as described in the document submitted to the Department of Health (DH) (8th November 2013). The current document provides details on the objectives, methodology and results for Work Package 1 (WP1): to determine what PROMS should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2014/15 NCA programme.2. OVERVIEWWP1 is split into three separate components consisting of:WP1.1 To examine whether the EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) is appropriate in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 NCA programme.WP1.2 To identify what measure could be used when the EQ-5D is not appropriate in the 13 health conditions, taking into account that the proposed measure would be used to generate preference-based utility measures (either directly through existing preference-based weights, or indirectly through existing mapping functions suitable for the proposed measure).WP1.3 To identify the evidence required to address questions of cost-effectiveness using the NCA data.Each component consists of a series of reviews of the literature.This Appendix provides the detailed results for the condition dementia and should be read in conjunction with both the main report and the methods/search strategy appendices.</p

SUPPORTING THE ROUTINE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN THE NATIONAL CLINICAL AUDITS FOR ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS Work Package 1 - What patient reported outcome measures should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 National Clinical Audit programme? Appendix D, Epilepsy.

The Policy Research Unit in Economic Evaluation of Health and Care Interventions (EEPRU) was approached by Jason Cox (Research and Development (R&D) Division) to prepare a programme of research to support the appropriateness of, and use of, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected for the National Clinical Audit (NCA). The EEPRU programme was informed by a R&D template prepared by Simon Bennett, Steve Fairman and Keith Willett at National Health Service (NHS) England.The purpose of introducing PROMs into the NCA programme is to be able to 1) compare performance between providers and commissioners in the NHS, 2) compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative providers in delivering the specific services (i.e. linking outcomes and resource use), and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions and other changes in the NHS. The intention is to introduce PROMs across a range of conditions over the next 3 years commencing with 13 conditions in the 2014/15 NCA programme.The agreed research programme consists of 3 concurrent work packages (WP) as described in the document submitted to the Department of Health (DH) (8th November 2013). The current document provides details on the objectives, methodology and results for Work Package 1 (WP1): to determine what PROMS should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2014/15 NCA programme.2. OVERVIEWWP1 is split into three separate components consisting of:WP1.1 To examine whether the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) is appropriate in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 NCA programme.WP1.2 To identify what measure could be used when the EQ-5D is not appropriate in the 13 health conditions, taking into account that the proposed measure would be used to generate preference-based utility measures (either directly through existing preference-based weights, or indirectly through existing mapping functions suitable for the proposed measure).WP1.3 To identify the evidence required to address questions of cost-effectiveness using the NCA data.Each component consists of a series of reviews of the literature.This Appendix provides the detailed results for the condition epilepsy and should be read in conjunction with both the main report and the methods/search strategy appendices.</p

SUPPORTING THE ROUTINE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN THE NATIONAL CLINICAL AUDITS FOR ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS Work Package 1 - What patient reported outcome measures should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 National Clinical Audit programme?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the appropriateness of the EQ-5D in 13 specified conditions (inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), epilepsy, diabetes, bowel cancer, head and neck cancer, psychological therapies, schizophrenia, dementia, cardiac arrhythmia, heart failure, coronary angioplasty, acute coronary syndrome, adult cardiac surgery); identify what measures may be used when the EQ-5D is not appropriate; identify if fields in corresponding National Clinical Audits (NCA) will suffice to conduct economic evaluations; present recommendations and future research questions in this area.METHOD: For each condition, three reviews were considered (WP1.1, 1.2 and 1.3). WP1.1 comprised a review of the appropriateness of the EQ-5D. Known reviews were assessed in the first instance for adequacy according to a set of criteria and expert opinion. Where a known review was not available or not adequate, a systematic review of systematic reviews was conducted. Where no adequate systematic review was identified, a systematic review of primary studies was conducted. For WP1.1, systematic searches were conducted in PubMed and Embase and two conference proceedings citation indexes (Web of Science and EuroQoL) using appropriate free-text keywords and MeSH/thesaurus terms, and applying appropriate limits according to the review being conducted (review of reviews or of primary studies). WP1.2 comprised a review of condition specific measures that could be used and was only conducted for conditions where there was evidence that the EQ-5D was not adequate. This review consulted several online sources, such as Royal College websites, to identify research guidelines describing which condition specific measures should be used in research. WP1.3 comprised a review of existing cost-effectiveness evaluations used in recent health technology assessments (HTA) across the 13 conditions. Multiple technology appraisals (MTA) and single technology appraisals (STA) were systematically identified from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) HTA programme and the methods used to assess the cost effectiveness were extracted and compared to the data collected routinely in the NCAs.In all reviews, retrieved citations were considered for inclusion against a set of standardised selection criteria by one reviewer, and a second reviewer consulted in cases of uncertainty. Syntheses included tabulation of study results and either: presentation of a structured abstract and critique in the case of included systematic reviews or HTAs (WP1.1, 1.3); a narrative synthesis and discussion of results in the case of primary studies (WP1.1); or a tabulation and narrative synthesis in the case of research guidelines (WP1.2).RESULTS:Patient reported outcome measures (WP1.1 and 1.2)For WP1.1, conclusions were drawn from known reviews in four cases (psychological therapies; diabetes; epilepsy children; dementia); from updates and reanalyses of existing reviews in five cases (epilepsy adults; bowel cancer; head and neck cancer; schizophrenia; CVD); and from systematic reviews of primary studies in two cases (IBD adults; IBD children). For WP1.2, six reviews of the literature, augmented with literature known to the authors, were used to identify alternative or additional patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients with epilepsy (paediatrics), IBD (paediatrics), schizophrenia, head and neck cancer, dementia, and patients receiving psychological therapies.The psychometric properties of the EQ-5D were found to be adequate in ten of the 13 conditions. The exceptions were epilepsy (where the Paediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQL)TM was recommended), schizophrenia (where WEMWBS, to be replaced by ReQOL, was recommended) and dementia (where DEMQOL-U was recommended).With the exception of the mental health condition, no reference was made to the possibility of the EQ-5D being less responsive in older age groups. The presence of comorbidities in subjects was not reported in either the existing reviews or most of the primary studies. However, as the presence of comorbidities was not identified as an explicit exclusion criterion in all but the metal health review and in the diabetes studies, and the broad age ranges covered, it is assumed that the results and conclusions drawn will generalise across subjects with comorbidities.</p

SUPPORTING THE ROUTINE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN THE NATIONAL CLINICAL AUDITS FOR ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS Work Package 1 - What patient reported outcome measures should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 National Clinical Audit programme? Appendix C, Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

The Policy Research Unit in Economic Evaluation of Health and Care Interventions (EEPRU) was approached by Jason Cox (Research and Development (R&D) Division) to prepare a programme of research to support the appropriateness of, and use of, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected for the National Clinical Audit (NCA). The EEPRU programme was informed by a R&D template prepared by Simon Bennett, Steve Fairman and Keith Willett at National Health Service (NHS) England.The purpose of introducing PROMs into the NCA programme is to be able to 1) compare performance between providers and commissioners in the NHS, 2) compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative providers in delivering the specific services (i.e. linking outcomes and resource use), and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions and other changes in the NHS. The intention is to introduce PROMs across a range of conditions over the next 3 years commencing with 13 conditions in the 2014/15 NCA programme.The agreed research programme consists of 3 concurrent work packages (WP) as described in the document submitted to the Department of Health (DH) (8th November 2013). The current document provides details on the objectives, methodology and results for Work Package 1 (WP1): to determine what PROMS should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2014/15 NCA programme.2.OVERVIEWWP1 is split into three separate components consisting of:WP1.1 To examine whether the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) is appropriate in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 NCA programme.WP1.2 To identify what measure could be used when the EQ-5D is not appropriate in the 13 health conditions, taking into account that the proposed measure would be used to generate preference-based utility measures (either directly through existing preference-based weights, or indirectly through existing mapping functions suitable for the proposed measure).WP1.3 To identify the evidence required to address questions of cost-effectiveness using the NCA data.Each component consists of a series of reviews of the literature.EEPRU NCA Appendix C: Inflammatory Bowel Disease This Appendix provides the detailed results for the condition inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and should be read in conjunction with both the main report and the methods/search strategy appendices.</p

Ranunculus reptans L. var. flagellifolius Ohwi

原著和名: イトキンポウゲ科名: キンポウゲ科 = Ranunculaceae採集地: 栃木県 日光市 刈込湖 (下野 日光 刈込湖)採集日: 1963/7/7採集者: 萩庭丈壽整理番号: JH000224国立科学博物館整理番号: TNS-VS-95022

SUPPORTING THE ROUTINE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN THE NATIONAL CLINICAL AUDITS FOR ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS Work Package 1 - What patient reported outcome measures should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 National Clinical Audit programme? Appendix F, Bowel Cancer

EEPRU was approached by Jason Cox (R&D Division) to prepare a programme of research to support the appropriateness of, and use of, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected for the National Clinical Audit (NCA). The EEPRU programme was informed by a Research and Development (R&D) template prepared by Simon Bennett, Steve Fairman and Keith Willett at NHS England.The purpose of introducing PROMs into the NCA programme is to be able to 1) compare performance between providers and commissioners in the National Health Service (NHS), 2) compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative providers in delivering the specific services (i.e. linking outcomes and resource use), and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions and other changes in the NHS. The intention is to introduce PROMs across a range of conditions over the next 3 years commencing with 13 conditions in the 2014/15 NCA programme.The agreed research programme consists of 3 concurrent work packages (WP) as described in the document submitted to the DH (8th November 2013). The current document provides details on the objectives, methodology and results for Work Package 1 (WP1): to determine what PROMS should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2014/15 NCA programme.2. OVERVIEWWP1 is split into three separate components consisting of:WP1.1 To examine whether the EQ-5D is appropriate in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 NCA programme.WP1.2 To identify what measure could be used when the EQ-5D is not appropriate in the 13 health conditions, taking into account that the proposed measure would be used to generate preference-based utility measures (either directly through existing preference-based weights, or indirectly through existing mapping functions suitable for the proposed measure).WP1.3 To identify the evidence required to address questions of cost-effectiveness using the NCA data.Each component consists of a series of reviews of the literature.This Appendix provides the detailed results for the condition bowel cancer and should be read in conjunction with both the main report and the methods/search strategy appendices.</p

SUPPORTING THE ROUTINE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN THE NATIONAL CLINICAL AUDITS FOR ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS Work Package 1 - What patient reported outcome measures should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 National Clinical Audit programme? Appendix G, Head and Neck Cancer

EEPRU was approached by Jason Cox (R&D Division) to prepare a programme of research to support the appropriateness of, and use of, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected for the National Clinical Audit (NCA). The EEPRU programme was informed by a Research and Development (R&D) template prepared by Simon Bennett, Steve Fairman and Keith Willett at NHS England.The purpose of introducing PROMs into the NCA programme is to be able to 1) compare performance between providers and commissioners in the National Health Service (NHS), 2) compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative providers in delivering the specific services (i.e. linking outcomes and resource use), and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions and other changes in the NHS. The intention is to introduce PROMs across a range of conditions over the next 3 years commencing with 13 conditions in the 2014/15 NCA programme.The agreed research programme consists of 3 concurrent work packages (WP) as described in the document submitted to the DH (8th November 2013). The current document provides details on the objectives, methodology and results for Work Package 1 (WP1): to determine what PROMS should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2014/15 NCA programme.2. OVERVIEWWP1 is split into three separate components consisting of:WP1.1 To examine whether the Euro-QoL 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) is appropriate in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 NCA programme.WP1.2 To identify what measure could be used when the EQ-5D is not appropriate in the 13 health conditions, taking into account that the proposed measure would be used to generate preference-based utility measures (either directly through existing preference-based weights, or indirectly through existing mapping functions suitable for the proposed measure).WP1.3 To identify the evidence required to address questions of cost-effectiveness using the NCA data.Each component consists of a series of reviews of the literature.This Appendix provides the detailed results for the condition head and neck cancer and should be read in conjunction with both the main report and the methods/search strategy appendices.</p

SUPPORTING THE ROUTINE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN THE NATIONAL CLINICAL AUDITS FOR ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS Work Package 1 - What patient reported outcome measures should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 National Clinical Audit programme? Appendix I, Schizophrenia

EEPRU was approached by Jason Cox (R&D Division) to prepare a programme of research to support the appropriateness of, and use of, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected for the National Clinical Audit (NCA). The EEPRU programme was informed by a R&D template prepared by Simon Bennett, Steve Fairman and Keith Willett at NHS England.The purpose of introducing PROMs into the NCA programme is to be able to 1) compare performance between providers and commissioners in the National Health Service (NHS), 2) compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative providers in delivering the specific services (i.e. linking outcomes and resource use), and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions and other changes in the NHS. The intention is to introduce PROMs across a range of conditions over the next 3 years commencing with 13 conditions in the 2014/15 NCA programme.The agreed research programme consists of 3 concurrent work packages (WP) as described in the document submitted to the Department of Health (DH) (8th November 2013). The current document provides details on the objectives, methodology and results for Work Package 1 (WP1): to determine what PROMS should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2014/15 NCA programme.2. OVERVIEWWP1 is split into three separate components consisting of:WP1.1 To examine whether the EuroQoL 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) is appropriate in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 NCA programme.WP1.2 To identify what measure could be used when the EQ-5D is not appropriate in the 13 health conditions, taking into account that the proposed measure would be used to generate preference-based utility measures (either directly through existing preference-based weights, or indirectly through existing mapping functions suitable for the proposed measure).WP1.3 To identify the evidence required to address questions of cost-effectiveness using the NCA data.Each component consists of a series of reviews of the literature and the specific review objectives and methodologies are described in detail in the following sections.</p

SUPPORTING THE ROUTINE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN THE NATIONAL CLINICAL AUDITS FOR ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS Work Package 1 - What patient reported outcome measures should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 National Clinical Audit programme? Appendix E, Diabetes.

The Policy Research Unit in Economic Evaluation of Health and Care Interventions (EEPRU) was approached by Jason Cox (Research and Development (R&D) Division) to prepare a programme of research to support the appropriateness of, and use of, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected for the National Clinical Audit (NCA). The EEPRU programme was informed by a R&D template prepared by Simon Bennett, Steve Fairman and Keith Willett at National Health Service (NHS) England.The purpose of introducing PROMs into the NCA programme is to be able to 1) compare performance between providers and commissioners in the NHS, 2) compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative providers in delivering the specific services (i.e. linking outcomes and resource use), and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions and other changes in the NHS. The intention is to introduce PROMs across a range of conditions over the next 3 years commencing with 13 conditions in the 2014/15 NCA programme.The agreed research programme consists of 3 concurrent work packages (WP) as described in the document submitted to the Department of Health (DH) (8th November 2013). The current document provides details on the objectives, methodology and results for Work Package 1 (WP1): to determine what PROMs should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2014/15 NCA programme.2. OVERVIEWWP1 is split into three separate components consisting of:WP1.1 To examine whether the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) is appropriate in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 NCA programme.WP1.2 To identify what measure could be used when the EQ-5D is not appropriate in the 13 health conditions, taking into account that the proposed measure would be used to generate preference-based utility measures (either directly through existing preference-based weights, or indirectly through existing mapping functions suitable for the proposed measure).WP1.3 To identify the evidence required to address questions of cost-effectiveness using the NCA data.This Appendix provides the results for diabetes and should be read in conjunction with both the main report and the method/search strategy appendices.</p