Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes

© 2014 Glover et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background - Building on an approach developed to assess the economic returns to cardiovascular research, we estimated the economic returns from UK public and charitable funded cancer-related research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes. Methods - To assess these economic returns from cancer-related research in the UK we estimated: 1) public and charitable expenditure on cancer-related research in the UK from 1970 to 2009; 2) net monetary benefit (NMB), that is, the health benefit measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of GB£25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1991 to 2010; 3) the proportion of NMB attributable to UK research; 4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain; and 5) the internal rate of return (IRR) from cancer-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using sensitivity analyses to illustrate the effect of some key parameters. Results - In 2011/12 prices, total expenditure on cancer-related research from 1970 to 2009 was £15 billion. The NMB of the 5.9 million QALYs gained from the prioritised interventions from 1991 to 2010 was £124 billion. Calculation of the IRR incorporated an estimated elapsed time of 15 years. We related 17% of the annual NMB estimated to be attributable to UK research (for each of the 20 years 1991 to 2010) to 20 years of research investment 15 years earlier (that is, for 1976 to 1995). This produced a best-estimate IRR of 10%, compared with 9% previously estimated for cardiovascular disease research. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the importance of smoking reduction as a major source of improved cancer-related health outcomes. Conclusions - We have demonstrated a substantive IRR from net health gain to public and charitable funding of cancer-related research in the UK, and further validated the approach that we originally used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular research. In doing so, we have highlighted a number of weaknesses and key assumptions that need strengthening in further investigations. Nevertheless, these cautious estimates demonstrate that the returns from past cancer research have been substantial, and justify the investments made during the period 1976 to 1995.Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, the National Institute of Health Research, and the Academy of Medical Sciences

A time series analysis of presentations to Queensland health facilities for alcohol-related conditions, following the increase in ‘alcopops’ tax

Objective: In response to concerns about the health consequences of high-risk drinking by young people, the Australian Government increased the tax on pre-mixed alcoholic beverages ('alcopops') favoured by this demographic. We measured changes in admissions for alcohol-related harm to health throughout Queensland, before and after the tax increase in April 2008. Methods: We used data from the Queensland Trauma Register, Hospitals Admitted Patients Data Collection, and the Emergency Department Information System to calculate alcohol-related admission rates per 100,000 people, for 15 - 29 year-olds. We analysed data over 3 years (April 2006 - April 2009), using interrupted time-series analyses. This covered 2 years before, and 1 year after, the tax increase. We investigated both mental and behavioural consequences (via F10 codes), and intentional/unintentional injuries (S and T codes). Results: We fitted an auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model, to test for any changes following the increased tax. There was no decrease in alcohol-related admissions in 15 - 29 year-olds. We found similar results for males and females, as well as definitions of alcohol-related harms that were narrow (F10 codes only) and broad (F10, S and T codes). Conclusions: The increased tax on 'alcopops' was not associated with any reduction in hospital admissions for alcohol-related harms in Queensland 15 - 29 year-olds

An exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial of knowledge translation strategies to support evidence-informed decision-making in local governments (The KT4LG study)

Background: Childhood overweight and obesity is the most prevalent and, arguably, politically complex child health problem internationally. Governments, communities and industry have important roles to play, and are increasingly expected to deliver an evidence-informed system-wide prevention program. However, efforts are impeded by a lack of organisational access to and use of research evidence. This study aims to identify feasible, acceptable and ideally, effective knowledge translation (KT) strategies to increase evidence-informed decision making in local governments, within the context of childhood obesity prevention as a national policy priority.Methods/Design: This paper describes the methods for KT4LG, a cluster randomised controlled trial which is exploratory in nature, given the limited evidence base and methodological advances. KT4LG aims to examine a program of KT strategies to increase the use of research evidence in informing public health decisions in local governments. KT4LG will also assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. The intervention program comprises a facilitated program of evidence awareness, access to tailored research evidence, critical appraisal skills development, networking and evidence summaries and will be compared to provision of evidence summaries alone in the control program. 28 local governments were randomised to intervention or control, using computer generated numbers, stratified by budget tertile (high, medium or low). Questionnaires will be used to measure impact, costs, and outcomes, and key informant interviews will be used to examine processes, feasibility, and experiences. Policy tracer studies will be included to examine impact of intervention on policies within relevant government policy documents.Discussion: Knowledge translation intervention studies with a focus on public health and prevention are very few in number. Thus, this study will provide essential data on the experience of program implementation and evaluation of a system-integrated intervention program employed within the local government public health context. Standardised programs of system, organisational and individual KT strategies have not been described or rigorously evaluated. As such, the findings will make a significant contribution to understanding whether a facilitated program of KT strategies hold promise for facilitating evidence-informed public health decision making within complex multisectoral government organisations.<br /

How do pharmacists in English general practices identify their impact? An exploratory qualitative study of measurement problems

Background: In England, there is an ongoing national pilot to expand pharmacists’ presence in general practice. Evaluation of the pilot includes numerical and survey-based Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and requires pharmacists to electronically record their activities, possibly by using activity codes. At the time of the study (2016), no national evaluation of pharmacists’ impact in this environment had been formally announced. The aim of this qualitative study was to identify problems that English pharmacists face when measuring and recording their impact in general practice. Methods: All pharmacists, general practitioners (GPs) and practice managers working across two West London pilot sites were invited, via e-mail, to participate in a focus group study. Appropriately trained facilitators conducted two audio-recorded, semi-structured focus groups, each lasting approximately one hour, to explore experiences and perceptions associated with the KPIs. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and the data analysed thematically. Results: In total, 13 pharmacists, one GP and one practice manager took part in the study. Four major themes were discerned: inappropriateness of the numerical national KPIs (“whether or not we actually have positive impact on KPIs is beyond our control”); depth and breadth of pharmacists’ activity (“we see a huge plethora of different patients and go through this holistic approach - everything is looked at”); awareness of practice based pharmacists’ roles (“I think the really important [thing] is that everyone knows what pharmacists in general practice are doing”); and central evaluation versus local initiatives (“the KPIs will be measured by National Health Service England regardless of what we think” versus “what I think is more pertinent, are there some local things we’re going to measure?”). Conclusions: Measures that will effectively capture pharmacists’ impact in general practice should be developed, along with a set of codes reflecting the whole spectrum of pharmacists’ activities. Our study also points out the significance of a transparent, robust national evaluation, including exploring the needs/expectations of practice staff and patients regarding pharmacists’ presence in general practice

Skin cancer and Parkinson’s disease

© 2010 Movement Disorder Society [The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com] - [A versão definitiva está disponível em www3.interscience.wiley.com]The report of an increased frequency of melanoma during the clinical development of rasagiline prompted a renewed interest in a possible association between skin cancer and Parkinson's disease (PD). The evaluation of this risk ended in a recommendation to perform a periodic dermatological examination as a follow-up measure of their treatment. The recognition of this safety concern lead to the need to clarify if the risk of skin cancer is indeed associated with PD and if levodopa or other anti-parkinsonian drugs might contribute to increase such risk. To answer these questions, we critically reviewed all clinical studies available concerning the association between skin cancer and PD. We found 26 studies on cancer occurrence in PD. The best data available suggest the risk of cancer is reduced in PD patients. However, specific cancers like thyroid and the female breast were reported at higher-than-expected rates. Additionally, it was suggested that PD patients have a higher frequency of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers than the general population. The data on non-melanoma skin cancer are less robust than the data on melanoma. Causal factors remain unknown. Due to the weak association between skin cancer and PD, no robust recommendation can be made regarding the need for periodic dermatological screening.Financial Disclosure: In the past 12 months, the authors have the following information to disclose. Joaquim Ferreira, Consultancies: TEVA, Lundbeck, Ipsen, Solstice, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Solvay, Grunenthal, BIAL; Advisory Boards: GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, TEVA, Lundbeck, Allergan, Solvay, BIAL. Mário Rosa, Honoraria: Tecnifar, Grunenthal. Olivier Rascol: Consultancies: Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxosmithKline, Novartis, Schering, Solvay, Teva Neuroscience, Lundbeck and UCB; Grants: Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxosmithKline, Novartis, Solvay, Teva Neuroscience and Lundbeck. Cristina Sampaio, Consultancies: In all cases the fees / honoraria due are paid to department and not received personally: Lundbeck, Abbott, Bial, Boeringher -LMS Group Schering-Plough, Solvay

Societal output and use of research performed by health research groups

The last decade has seen the evaluation of health research pay more and more attention to societal use and benefits of research in addition to scientific quality, both in qualitative and quantitative ways. This paper elaborates primarily on a quantitative approach to assess societal output and use of research performed by health research groups (societal quality of research). For this reason, one of the Dutch university medical centres (i.e. the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)) was chosen as the subject of a pilot study, because of its mission to integrate top patient care with medical, biomedical and healthcare research and education. All research departments were used as units of evaluation within this university medical centre

Differences in the quality of primary medical care for CVD and diabetes across the NHS: evidence from the quality and outcomes framework

Background: Health policy in the UK has rapidly diverged since devolution in 1999. However, there is relatively little comparative data available to examine the impact of this natural experiment in the four UK countries. The Quality and Outcomes Framework of the 2004 General Medical Services Contract provides a new and potentially rich source of comparable clinical quality data through which we compare quality of primary medical care for coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, hypertension and diabetes across the four UK countries. &lt;p/&gt;Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was undertaken involving 10,064 general practices in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The main outcome measures were prevalence rates for CHD, stroke, hypertension and diabetes. Achievement on 14 simple process, 3 complex process, 9 intermediate outcome and 5 treatment indicators for the four clinical areas. &lt;p/&gt;Results: Prevalence varies by up to 28% between the four UK countries, which is not reflected in resource distribution between countries, and penalises practices in the high prevalence countries (Wales and Scotland). Differences in simple process measures across countries are small. Larger differences are found for complex process, intermediate outcome and treatment measures, most notably for Wales, which has consistently lower quality of care. Scotland has generally higher quality than England and Northern Ireland is most consistently the highest quality. &lt;p/&gt;Conclusion: Previously identified weaknesses in Wales related to waiting times appear to reflect a more general quality problem within NHS Wales. Identifying explanations for the observed differences is limited by the lack of comparable data on practice resources and organisation. Maximising the value of cross-jurisdictional comparisons of the ongoing natural experiment of health policy divergence within the UK requires more detailed examination of resource and organisational differences