Priority setting for universal health coverage: We need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness

Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal choices. The reason is that priority setting is in reality a value-laden political process in which multiple criteria beyond cost-effectiveness are important, and stakeholders often justifiably disagree about the relative importance of these criteria. Here, we propose the use of ‘evidence-informed deliberative processes’ as an approach that does explicitly recognise priority setting as a political process and an intrinsically complex task. In these processes, deliberation between stakeholders is crucial to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. Such processes then result in the use of a broader range of explicit criteria that can be seen as the product of both international learning (‘core’ criteria, which include eg, cost-effectiveness, priority to the worse off, and financial protection) and learning among local stakeholders (‘contextual’ criteria). We believe that, with these evidence-informed deliberative processes in place, priority setting can provide a more meaningful contribution to achieving UHC

The capability set for work: Development and validation of a new questionnaire

__Objectives__ The aim of this study was to develop a questionnaire to measure work capabilities based on Amartya Sen’s capability approach and evaluate its validity. __Methods__ The development of the questionnaire was based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods: interviews, literature study, and an expert meeting. Additionally, in a survey, the validity was evaluated by means of hypotheses testing (using correlations and regression analyses). __Results__ The questionnaire consists of a set of seven capability aspects for work. For each aspect, it is determined whether it is part of a worker’s capability set, ie, when the aspect is considered valuable, is enabled in work, and is realized. The capability set was significantly correlated with work role functioning-flexibility demands (-0,187), work ability (-0.304), work performance (-0.282), worked hours (-0.073), sickness absence (yes/no) (0.098), and sickness absence days (0.105). The capability set and the overall capability item are significantly associated with all work outcomes (P<0.010). __Conclusions__ The new capability set for work questionnaire appears to be a valid instrument to measure work capabilities. The questionnaire is unique because the items include the valued aspects of work and incorporate whether a worker is able to achieve what (s)he values in his/her work. The questionnaire can be used to evaluate the capability set of workers in organizations to identify aspects that need to be addressed in interventions

Combined N-of-1 trials to investigate mexiletine in non-dystrophic myotonia using a Bayesian approach; study rationale and protocol

Background: To obtain evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatments for patients with rare diseases is a challenge. Non-dystrophic myotonia (NDM) is a group of inherited, rare muscle diseases characterized by muscle stiffness. The reimbursement of mexiletine, the expert opinion drug for NDM, has been discontinued in some countries due to a lack of independent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It remains unclear however, which concessions can be accepted towards the level 1 evidence needed for coverage decisions, in rare diseases. Considering the large number of rare diseases with a lack of treatment evidence, more experience with innovative trial designs is needed. Both NDM and mexiletine are well suited for an N-of-1 trial design. A Bayesian approach allows for the combination of N-of-1 trials, which enables the assessment of outcomes on the patient and group level simultaneously. Methods/Design: We will combine 30 individual, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled N-of-1 trials of mexiletine (600 mg daily) vs. placebo in genetically confirmed NDM patients using hierarchical Bayesian modeling. Our results will be compared and combined with the main results of an international cross-over RCT (mexiletine vs. placebo in NDM) published in 2012 that will be used as an informative prior. Similar criteria of eligibility, treatment regimen, end-points and measurement instruments are employed as used in the international cross-over RCT. Discussion: The treatment of patients with NDM with mexiletine offers a unique opportunity to compare outcomes and efficiency of novel N-of-1 trial-based designs and conventional approaches in producing evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatments for patients with rare diseases

Design of the PROCON trial: a prospective, randomized multi – center study comparing cervical anterior discectomy without fusion, with fusion or with arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: PROCON was designed to assess the clinical outcome, development of adjacent disc disease and costs of cervical anterior discectomy without fusion, with fusion using a stand alone cage and implantation of a Bryan's disc prosthesis. Description of rationale and design of PROCON trial and discussion of its strengths and limitations. METHODS/DESIGN: Since proof justifying the use of implants or arthroplasty after cervical anterior discectomy is lacking, PROCON was designed. PROCON is a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing cervical anterior discectomy without fusion, with fusion with a stand alone cage or with implantation of a disc. The study population will be enrolled from patients with a single level cervical disc disease without myelopathic signs. Each treatment arm will need 90 patients. The patients will be followed for a minimum of five years, with visits scheduled at 6 weeks, 3 months, 12 months, and then yearly. At one year postoperatively, clinical outcome and self reported outcomes will be evaluated. At five years, the development of adjacent disc disease will be investigated. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will contribute to the discussion whether additional fusion or arthroplasty is needed and cost effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN4168184

Prediction of clinically relevant adverse drug events in surgical patients

Background Risk stratification of hospital patients for adverse drug events would enable targeting patients who may benefit from interventions aimed at reducing drug-related morbidity. It would support clinicians and hospital pharmacists in selecting patients to deliver a more efficient health care service. This study aimed to develop a prediction model that helps to identify patients on the day of hospital admission who are at increased risk of developing a clinically relevant, preventable adverse drug event during their stay on a surgical ward. Methods Data of the pre-intervention measurement period of the P-REVIEW study were used. This study was designed to assess the impact of a multifaceted educational intervention on clinically relevant, preventable adverse drug events in surgical patients. Thirty-nine variables were evaluated in a univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, respectively. Model performance was expressed in the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics. Bootstrapping was used for model validation. Results 6780 admissions of patients at surgical wards were included during the pre-intervention period of the PREVIEW trial. 102 patients experienced a clinically relevant, adverse drug event during their hospital stay. The prediction model comprised five variables: age, number of biochemical tests ordered, heparin/LMWH in therapeutic dose, use of opioids, and use of cardiovascular drugs. The AUROC was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83–0.88). The model had a sensitivity of 80.4% and a specificity of 73.4%. The positive and negative predictive values were 4.5% and 99.6%, respectively. Bootstrapping generated parameters in the same boundaries. Conclusions The combined use of a limited set of easily ascertainable patient characteristics can help physicians and pharmacists to identify, at the time of admission, surgical patients who are at increased risk of developing ADEs during their hospital stay. This may serve as a basis for taking extra precautions to ensure medication safety in those patients

A prediction model for primary aldosteronism when the salt loading test is inconclusive

Objective: To develop a prediction model to confirm or exclude primary aldosteronism (PA) in patients with an inconclusive salt loading test (SLT). Context: Diagnosis in patients with a suspicion of PA can be confirmed using an SLT. In case of inconclusive test results the decision about how to manage the patient is usually based on contextual clinical data. Design: We included a retrospective cohort of 276 patients in the final analysis. Methods: All patients underwent an SLT between 2005 and 2016 in our university medical center. The SLT was inconclusive (post-infusion aldosterone levels 140–280 pmol/L) in 115 patients. An expert panel then used contextual clinical data to diagnose PA in 45 of them. Together with 101 patients with a positive SLT this resulted in a total of 146 patients with PA. A total of 11 variables were used in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. We assessed internal validity by bootstrapping techniques. Results: The following variables were independently associated with PA: more intense potassium supplementation, lower plasma potassium concentration, lower plasma renin concentration before SLT and higher plasma aldosterone concentration after SLT. The resulting prediction model had a sensitivity of 84.4% and a specificity of 94.3% in patients with an inconclusive SLT. The positive and negative predictive values were 90.5 and 90.4%, respectively. Conclusions: We developed a prediction model for the diagnosis of PA in patients with an inconclusive SLT that results in a diagnosis that was in high agreement with that of an expert panel

Participatory Workshops are Not Enough to Prevent Policy Implementation Failures: An Example of a Policy Development Process Concerning the Drug Interferon-beta for Multiple Sclerosis

A possible explanation for policy implementation failure is that the views of the policy’s target groups are insufficiently taken into account during policy development. It has been argued that involving these groups in an interactive process of policy development could improve this. We analysed a project in which several target populations participated in workshops aimed to optimise the utilisation of an expensive novel drug (interferon beta) for patients with Multiple Sclerosis. All participants seemed to agree on the appropriateness of establishing a central registry of Multiple Sclerosis patients and developing guidelines. Nevertheless, these policy measures were not implemented. Possible explanations include (1) the subject no longer had high priority when the costs appeared lower than expected, (2) the organisers had paid insufficient attention to the perceived problems of parties involved, and (3) changes within the socio-political context. The workshops in which representatives of the policy’s target populations participated did not provide enough interactivity to prevent policy implementation failure

Effects of shared medical appointments on quality of life and cost-effectiveness for patients with a chronic neuromuscular disease. Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 96862.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Shared medical appointments are a series of one-to-one doctor-patient contacts, in presence of a group of 6-10 fellow patients. This group visits substitute the annual control visits of patients with the neurologist. The same items attended to in a one-to-one appointment are addressed. The possible advantages of a shared medical appointment could be an added value to the present management of neuromuscular patients. The currently problem-focused one-to-one out-patient visits often leave little time for the patient's psychosocial needs, patient education, and patient empowerment. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized, prospective controlled study (RCT) with a follow up of 6 months will be conducted to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of shared medical appointments compared to usual care for 300 neuromuscular patients and their partners at the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center. Every included patient will be randomly allocated to one of the two study arms. This study has been reviewed and approved by the medical ethics committee of the region Arnhem-Nijmegen, The Netherlands. The primary outcome measure is quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D, SF-36 and the Individualized neuromuscular Quality of Life Questionnaire. The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat analysis on the area under the curve of the quality of life scores. A linear mixed model will be used with random factor group and fixed factors treatment, baseline score and type of neuromuscular disease. For the economic evaluation an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted from a societal perspective, relating differences in costs to difference in health outcome. Results are expected in 2012. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first randomized controlled trial which evaluates the effect of shared medical appointments versus usual care for neuromuscular patients. This will enable to determine if there is additional value of shared medical appointments to the current therapeutical spectrum. When this study shows that group visits produce the alleged benefits, this may help to increase the acceptance of this innovative and creative way of using one of the most precious resources in health care more efficiently: time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DutchTrial Register http://www.trialregister.nlNTR1412

Human resource management interventions to improve health workers' performance in low and middle income countries: a realist review

Contains fulltext : 80429.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Improving health workers' performance is vital for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. In the literature on human resource management (HRM) interventions to improve health workers' performance in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMIC), hardly any attention has been paid to the question how HRM interventions might bring about outcomes and in which contexts. Such information is, however, critical to assess the transferability of results. Our aim was to explore if realist review of published primary research provides better insight into the functioning of HRM interventions in LMIC. METHODOLOGY: A realist review not only asks whether an intervention has shown to be effective, but also through which mechanisms an intervention produces outcomes and which contextual factors appear to be of critical influence. Forty-eight published studies were reviewed. Results : The results show that HRM interventions can improve health workers' performance, but that different contexts produce different outcomes. Critical implementation aspects were involvement of local authorities, communities and management; adaptation to the local situation; and active involvement of local staff to identify and implement solutions to problems. Mechanisms that triggered change were increased knowledge and skills, feeling obliged to change and health workers' motivation. Mechanisms to contribute to motivation were health workers' awareness of local problems and staff empowerment, gaining acceptance of new information and creating a sense of belonging and respect. In addition, staff was motivated by visible improvements in quality of care and salary supplements. Only a limited variety of HRM interventions have been evaluated in the health sector in LMIC. Assumptions underlying HRM interventions are usually not made explicit, hampering our understanding of how HRM interventions work. CONCLUSION: Application of a realist perspective allows identifying which HRM interventions might improve performance, under which circumstances, and for which groups of health workers. To be better able to contribute to an understanding of how HRM interventions could improve health workers' performance, a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods would be needed and the use of common indicators for evaluation and a common reporting format would be required