Valuing maternity care: a comparison of stated preference methods with an application to cost-benefit analysis

This research investigates whether a reconfiguration of maternity services, which collocates consultant- and midwifery-led care, reflects demand and value for money in Ireland. Qualitative and quantitative research is undertaken to investigate demand and an economic evaluation is performed to evaluate the costs and benefits of the different models of care. Qualitative research is undertaken to identify women’s motivations when choosing place of delivery. These data are further used to inform two stated preference techniques: a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and contingent valuation method (CVM). These are employed to identify women’s strengths of preferences for different features of care (DCE) and estimate women’s willingness to pay for maternity care (CVM), which is used to inform a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) on consultant- and midwifery-led care. The qualitative research suggests women do not have a clear preference for consultant or midwifery-led care, but rather a hybrid model of care which closely resembles the Domiciliary Care In and Out of Hospital (DOMINO) scheme. Women’s primary concern during care is safety, meaning women would only utilise midwifery-led care when co-located with consultant-led care. The DCE also finds women’s preferred package of care closely mirrors the DOMINO scheme with 39% of women expected to utilise this service. Consultant- and midwifery-led care would then be utilised by 34% and 27% of women, respectively. The CVM supports this hierarchy of preferences where consultant-led care is consistently valued more than midwifery-led care – women are willing to pay €956.03 for consultant-led care and €808.33 for midwifery-led care. A package of care for a woman availing of consultant- and midwifery-led care is estimated to cost €1,102.72 and €682.49, respectively. The CBA suggests both models of care are cost-beneficial and should be pursued in Ireland. This reconfiguration of maternity services would maximise women’s utility, while fulfilling important objectives of key government policy

Surgical site infection after caesarean section? There is an app for that: results from a feasibility study on costs and benefits

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common and, yet, preventable healthcare associated infections. In Ireland, the rate of Caesarean section (CS) is increasing, while postpartum hospital stay is decreasing, adversely affecting SSI among women. There is much need to develop post-discharge surveillance which can effectively monitor, detect, and arrange treatment for affected women. The use of modern technology to survey SSI following discharge from hospital remains unexplored. We report the results of a feasibility study which investigates whether an integrated mobile application (hereafter, app) is more cost-beneficial than a stand-alone app or telephone helpline at surveying SSI following CS. We find women prefer the integrated app (47.5%; n=116/244) over the stand-alone app (8.2%; n=20/244) and telephone helpline (18.0%; 44/244), although there is no significant difference in women's valuation of these services using willingness to pay techniques. The stand-alone app is the only cost-beneficial service due to low labour costs. Future research should employ alternative measures when evaluating the benefits of the health technology. The use of a mobile app as a mechanism for postpartum care could represent a considerable advancement towards technological health care

What women want:Exploring pregnant women's preferences for alternative models of maternity care

Depending on obstetric risk, maternity care may be provided in one of two locations at hospital level: a consultant-led unit (CLU) or a midwifery-led unit (MLU). Care in a MLU is sparsely provided in Ireland, comprising as few as two units out of a total 21 maternity units. Given its potential for greater efficiencies of care and cost-savings for the state, there has been an increased interest to expand MLUs in Ireland. Yet, very little is known about women’s preferences for midwifery-led care, and whether they would utilise this service when presented with the choice of delivering in a CLU or MLU. This study seeks to involve women in the future planning of maternity care by investigating their preferences for care and subsequent motivations when choosing place of birth. Qualitative research is undertaken to explore maternal preferences for these different models of care. Women only revealed a preference for the MLU when co-located with a CLU due to its close proximity to medical services. However, the results suggest women do not have a clear preference for either model of care, but rather a hybrid model of care which encompasses features of both consultant- and midwifery-led car

Screening strategies for atrial fibrillation:A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation therapy to prevent AF-related stroke has been shown to be cost-effective. A national screening programme for AF may prevent AF-related events, but would involve a substantial investment of NHS resources. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of screening tests for AF, update a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating screening strategies for AF, develop an economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies and review observational studies of AF screening to provide inputs to the model. Design: Systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting: Primary care. Participants: Adults. Intervention: Screening strategies, defined by screening test, age at initial and final screens, screening interval and format of screening {systematic opportunistic screening [individuals offered screening if they consult with their general practitioner (GP)] or systematic population screening (when all eligible individuals are invited to screening)}. Main outcome measures: Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios; the odds ratio of detecting new AF cases compared with no screening; and the mean incremental net benefit compared with no screening. Review methods: Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A DTA meta-analysis was perfomed, and a decision tree and Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies. Results: Diagnostic test accuracy depended on the screening test and how it was interpreted. In general, the screening tests identified in our review had high sensitivity (> 0.9). Systematic population and systematic opportunistic screening strategies were found to be similarly effective, with an estimated 170 individuals needed to be screened to detect one additional AF case compared with no screening. Systematic opportunistic screening was more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening, as long as the uptake of opportunistic screening observed in randomised controlled trials translates to practice. Modified blood pressure monitors, photoplethysmography or nurse pulse palpation were more likely to be cost-effective than other screening tests. A screening strategy with an initial screening age of 65 years and repeated screens every 5 years until age 80 years was likely to be cost-effective, provided that compliance with treatment does not decline with increasing age. Conclusions: A national screening programme for AF is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Systematic opportunistic screening is more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening. Nurse pulse palpation or modified blood pressure monitors would be appropriate screening tests, with confirmation by diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiography interpreted by a trained GP, with referral to a specialist in the case of an unclear diagnosis. Implementation strategies to operationalise uptake of systematic opportunistic screening in primary care should accompany any screening recommendations. Limitations: Many inputs for the economic model relied on a single trial [the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly (SAFE) study] and DTA results were based on a few studies at high risk of bias/of low applicability. Future work: Comparative studies measuring long-term outcomes of screening strategies and DTA studies for new, emerging technologies and to replicate the results for photoplethysmography and GP interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiography in a screening population. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013739. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Screening strategies for atrial fibrillation:A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation therapy to prevent AF-related stroke has been shown to be cost-effective. A national screening programme for AF may prevent AF-related events, but would involve a substantial investment of NHS resources. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of screening tests for AF, update a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating screening strategies for AF, develop an economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies and review observational studies of AF screening to provide inputs to the model. DESIGN: Systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Adults. INTERVENTION: Screening strategies, defined by screening test, age at initial and final screens, screening interval and format of screening {systematic opportunistic screening [individuals offered screening if they consult with their general practitioner (GP)] or systematic population screening (when all eligible individuals are invited to screening)}. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios; the odds ratio of detecting new AF cases compared with no screening; and the mean incremental net benefit compared with no screening. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A DTA meta-analysis was perfomed, and a decision tree and Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies. RESULTS: Diagnostic test accuracy depended on the screening test and how it was interpreted. In general, the screening tests identified in our review had high sensitivity (> 0.9). Systematic population and systematic opportunistic screening strategies were found to be similarly effective, with an estimated 170 individuals needed to be screened to detect one additional AF case compared with no screening. Systematic opportunistic screening was more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening, as long as the uptake of opportunistic screening observed in randomised controlled trials translates to practice. Modified blood pressure monitors, photoplethysmography or nurse pulse palpation were more likely to be cost-effective than other screening tests. A screening strategy with an initial screening age of 65 years and repeated screens every 5 years until age 80 years was likely to be cost-effective, provided that compliance with treatment does not decline with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: A national screening programme for AF is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Systematic opportunistic screening is more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening. Nurse pulse palpation or modified blood pressure monitors would be appropriate screening tests, with confirmation by diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiography interpreted by a trained GP, with referral to a specialist in the case of an unclear diagnosis. Implementation strategies to operationalise uptake of systematic opportunistic screening in primary care should accompany any screening recommendations. LIMITATIONS: Many inputs for the economic model relied on a single trial [the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly (SAFE) study] and DTA results were based on a few studies at high risk of bias/of low applicability. FUTURE WORK: Comparative studies measuring long-term outcomes of screening strategies and DTA studies for new, emerging technologies and to replicate the results for photoplethysmography and GP interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiography in a screening population. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013739. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Antidepressant treatment with sertraline for adults with depressive symptoms in primary care : the PANDA research programme including RCT

Background Despite a growing number of prescriptions for antidepressants (over 70 million in 2018), there is uncertainty about when people with depression might benefit from antidepressant medication and concern that antidepressants are prescribed unnecessarily. Objectives The main objective of the PANDA (What are the indications for Prescribing ANtiDepressAnts that will lead to a clinical benefit?) research programme was to provide more guidance about when antidepressants are likely to benefit people with depression. We aimed to estimate the minimal clinically important difference for commonly used self-administered scales for depression and anxiety, and to understand more about how patients respond to such assessments. We carried out an observational study of patients with depressive symptoms and a placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial of sertraline versus placebo to estimate the treatment effect in UK primary care. The hypothesis was that the severity and duration of symptoms were related to treatment response. Design The programme consisted of three phases. The first phase relied on the secondary analysis of existing data extracted from published trials. The second phase was the PANDA cohort study of patients with depressive symptoms who presented to primary care and were followed up 2, 4 and 6 weeks after a baseline assessment. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the analysis. The third phase was a multicentre randomised placebo-controlled double-blind trial of sertraline versus placebo in patients presenting to primary care with depressive symptoms. Setting UK primary care in Bristol, London, Liverpool and York. Participants Patients aged 18–74 years who were experiencing depressive symptoms in primary care. Eligibility for the PANDA randomised controlled trial included that there was uncertainty about the benefits about treatment with an antidepressant. Interventions In the PANDA randomised controlled trial, patients were individually randomised to 100 mg daily of sertraline or an identical placebo. The PANDA cohort study was an observational study. Main outcome measures Depressive symptoms measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire were the primary outcome for the randomised controlled trial. Other outcomes included anxiety symptoms using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; depressive symptoms using the Beck Depression Inventory, version 2; health-related quality of life; self-reported improvement; and cost-effectiveness. Results The secondary analysis of existing randomised controlled trials [GENetic and clinical Predictors Of treatment response in Depression (GenPod), TREAting Depression with physical activity (TREAD) and Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive Behavioural Therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression in primary care (CoBalT)] found evidence that the minimal clinically important difference increased as the initial severity of depressive symptoms rose. Our estimates of minimal clinically important difference were a 17% and 18% reduction in Beck Depression Inventory scores for GenPod and TREAD, respectively. In CoBalT, a 32% reduction corresponded to the minimal clinically important difference but the participants in this study had depression that had not responded to antidepressants. In the PANDA study cohort, and from our analyses in existing data, we found that the minimal clinically important difference varies considerably with the initial severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Expressing the minimal clinically important difference as a percentage reduction reduces this variation at higher scores, but at low scores the percentage reduction increased substantially. The results from the qualitative studies pointed out many limitations of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items in assessing change and recovery from depression. In the PANDA randomised controlled trial, there was no evidence that sertraline resulted in a reduction in depressive symptoms within 6 weeks of randomisation, but there was some evidence of a reduction by 12 weeks. However, sertraline led to a reduction in anxiety symptoms, an improvement of mental health-related quality of life and an increased likelihood of reporting improvement. The mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 6 weeks was 7.98 (standard deviation 5.63) in the sertraline group and 8.76 (standard deviation 5.86) in the placebo group (5% relative reduction, 95% confidence interval –7% to 15%; p = 0.41). Of the secondary outcomes, there was strong evidence that sertraline reduced anxiety symptoms (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 score reduced by 17% (95% confidence interval 9% to 25%; p = 0.00005). Sertraline had a high probability (> 90%) of being cost-effective at 12 weeks. The PANDA randomised controlled trial found no evidence that treatment response or cost-effectiveness was related to severity or duration of depressive symptoms. The minimal clinically important difference estimates suggested that sertraline’s effect on anxiety, but not on depression, was likely to be clinically important. Limitations The results from the randomised controlled trial and the estimates of minimal clinically important difference were not sufficiently precise to provide specific clinical guidance for individuals. We had low power in testing whether or not initial severity and duration of depressive symptoms are related to treatment response. Conclusions The results of the trial support the use of sertraline and probably other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors because of their action in reducing anxiety symptoms and the likelihood of longer-term benefit on depressive symptoms. Sertraline could be prescribed for anxiety symptoms that commonly occur with depression and many patients will experience a clinical benefit. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items and similar self-administered scales should not be used on their own to assess clinical outcome, but should be supplemented with further clinical assessment. Future work We need to examine the longer-term effects of antidepressant treatment. We need more precise estimates of the treatment effects and minimal clinically important difference at different severities to provide more specific guidance for individuals. However, the methods we have developed provide an approach towards providing such detailed guidance. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84544741 and EudraCT number 2013-003440-22. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information