35 research outputs found

    Estimating the Cost of Type 1 Diabetes in the U.S.: A Propensity Score Matching Method

    Get PDF
    Diabetes costs represent a large burden to both patients and the health care system. However, few studies that examine the economic consequences of diabetes have distinguished between the two major forms, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, despite differences in underlying pathologies. Combining the two diseases implies that there is no difference between the costs of type 1 and type 2 diabetes to a patient. In this study, we examine the costs of type 1 diabetes, which is often overlooked due to the larger population of type 2 patients, and compare them to the estimated costs of diabetes reported in the literature.Using a nationally representative dataset, we estimate yearly and lifetime medical and indirect costs of type 1 diabetes by implementing a matching method to compare a patient with type 1 diabetes to a similar individual without the disease. We find that each year type 1 diabetes costs this country 14.4billion(11.517.3)inmedicalcostsandlostincome.Intermsoflostincome,type1patientsincuradisproportionateshareoftype1andtype2costs.Further,ifthediseasewereeliminatedbytherapeuticintervention,anestimated14.4 billion (11.5-17.3) in medical costs and lost income. In terms of lost income, type 1 patients incur a disproportionate share of type 1 and type 2 costs. Further, if the disease were eliminated by therapeutic intervention, an estimated 10.6 billion (7.2-14.0) incurred by a new cohort and $422.9 billion (327.2-519.4) incurred by the existing number of type 1 diabetic patients over their lifetime would be avoided.We find that the costs attributed to type 1 diabetes are disproportionately higher than the number of type 1 patients compared with type 2 patients, suggesting that combining the two diseases when estimating costs is not appropriate. This study and another recent contribution provides a necessary first step in estimating the substantial costs of type 1 diabetes on the U.S

    Evaluation of the safety of C-spine clearance by paramedics: design and methodology

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Canadian Emergency Medical Services annually transport 1.3 million patients with potential neck injuries to local emergency departments. Less than 1% of those patients have a c-spine fracture and even less (0.5%) have a spinal cord injury. Most injuries occur before the arrival of paramedics, not during transport to the hospital, yet most patients are transported in ambulances immobilized. They stay fully immobilized until a bed is available, or until physician assessment and/or X-rays are complete. The prolonged immobilization is often unnecessary and adds to the burden of already overtaxed emergency medical services systems and crowded emergency departments.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The goal of this study is to evaluate the safety and potential impact of an active strategy that allows paramedics to assess very low-risk trauma patients using a validated clinical decision rule, the Canadian C-Spine Rule, in order to determine the need for immobilization during transport to the emergency department.</p> <p>This cohort study will be conducted in Ottawa, Canada with one emergency medical service. Paramedics with this service participated in an earlier validation study of the Canadian C-Spine Rule. Three thousand consecutive, alert, stable adult trauma patients with a potential c-spine injury will be enrolled in the study and evaluated using the Canadian C-Spine Rule to determine the need for immobilization. The outcomes that will be assessed include measures of safety (numbers of missed fractures and serious adverse outcomes), measures of clinical impact (proportion of patients transported without immobilization, key time intervals) and performance of the Rule.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Approximately 40% of all very low-risk trauma patients could be transported safely, without c-spine immobilization, if paramedics were empowered to make clinical decisions using the Canadian C-Spine Rule. This safety study is an essential step before allowing all paramedics across Canada to selectively immobilize trauma victims before transport. Once safety and potential impact are established, we intend to implement a multi-centre study to study actual impact.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01188447">NCT01188447</a></p

    Regional differences in portion size consumption behaviour: Insights for the global food industry

    Get PDF
    Abstract: Given the influence of globalization on consumer food behaviour across the world, the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the theoretical discourse around food portion size as a global consumption-related symbol and its underlying socio-economic drivers for food industry strategy. Overall, 25,000 global food consumers were surveyed across 24 countries to elicit insight on portion size consumption behaviour as well as consumer perception on eating and drinking small portion size within selected socio-economic classes. The data was quantitatively analysed to answer the pertinent research objectives. In 20 out of the 24 global markets surveyed, large food portion size was statistically established as a prevalent consumption-related symbol. The paper found that there are regional differences in portion size food consumption behaviour, and further disparities exist across age, gender and income status in 24 countries covering all regions, including Australia, China, Mexico, South Africa, United Kingdom and United States of America. The outlined food industry implications reveal that adaptation and standardisation strategies are still relevant in global food and nutrition strategy as revealed by the variations in the preference for food portion sizes across various countries of the world
    corecore