Sensitivity analysis results (LY: life year, QALY: quality adjusted life year, ICER: incremental cost effectiveness ratio); Simulation 1: Exacerbation rate = -46% and Increase QALY = 0.125; Simulation 2: Exacerbation rate = -46% and COPD costs = -10%, Simulation 3: Exacerbation rate = -46% and COPD costs = -10% and Increase QALY = 0.125.

<p>Sensitivity analysis results (LY: life year, QALY: quality adjusted life year, ICER: incremental cost effectiveness ratio); Simulation 1: Exacerbation rate = -46% and Increase QALY = 0.125; Simulation 2: Exacerbation rate = -46% and COPD costs = -10%, Simulation 3: Exacerbation rate = -46% and COPD costs = -10% and Increase QALY = 0.125.</p

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

<p>Incremental costs (€) of pulmonary rehabilitation intervention as a function of its incremental effectiveness (QALY).</p

Simulation result comparing Respiratory rehabilitation program to usual care (QALY: quality adjusted life year, ICER: incremental cost effectiveness ratio).

<p>Simulation result comparing Respiratory rehabilitation program to usual care (QALY: quality adjusted life year, ICER: incremental cost effectiveness ratio).</p

characteristics of the population without pulmonary rehabilitation (usual cares) and with pulmonary rehabilitation (PR); ⁺% non smokers/ex-smokers/smokers; ⁺⁺% of patients at least 1 exacerbation per year.

<p>characteristics of the population without pulmonary rehabilitation (usual cares) and with pulmonary rehabilitation (PR); ⁺% non smokers/ex-smokers/smokers; ⁺⁺% of patients at least 1 exacerbation per year.</p

Decision model.

<p>Four health states (GOLD2 to GOLD4 and death) defining the outcome of a patient with COPD. The arrows indicate the possibility of transition from one state to another. Transition from one state to another, based on GOLD criteria, is unidirectional. GOLD4 patients cannot transit to another stage, and « death » is an absorbing state in which transition to another state is not possible.</p

Acceptability curve.

<p>Percent chances that PR is-cost-effective (as compared to standard care) as a function of the willingness to pay (€/QALY) for it.</p

A systematic review of regulatory and educational interventions to reduce the burden associated with the prescriptions of sedative-hypnotics in adults treated for sleep disorders

<div><p>Background</p><p>The burden of Sedative-Hypnotics (SHs) has been known since the 1980s. Yet, their consumption remains high. A systematic review of the literature should help to assess efficient interventions to improve the appropriate use of SHs in sleep disorders.</p><p>Objectives</p><p>To identify and assess regulatory and educational interventions designed to improve the appropriate use of SHs for insomnia treatment.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We conducted a systematic review of the literature according to PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search covering the period 1980–2015 was carried out in Medline, Web of Science, Embase and PsycInfo. We included studies reporting the implementation of regulatory or educational strategies directed towards patients and/or healthcare professionals to improve the appropriate use of SHs to treat insomnia in the community, hospitals and nursing homes.</p><p>Results</p><p>Thirty-one studies were included: 23 assessed educational interventions (recommendations by mail/email, computer alerts, meetings, mass media campaigns, prescription profile), 8 assessed regulatory interventions (prescription rule restriction, end of reimbursement). The most recent was implemented in 2009. Restrictive prescription rules were effective to reduce the consumption of targeted SHs but led to a switch to other non-recommended SHs. Among educational interventions, only 3 studies out of 7 reported positive results of mono-faceted interventions; whereas, 13 out of the 16 multi-faceted interventions were reported as efficient: particularly, the active involvement of healthcare professionals and patients and the spread of information through mass media were successful. The risk of bias was high for 24 studies (mainly due to the design), moderate for 3 studies and weak for 4 studies.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Educational multifaceted studies are presented as the most efficient. But further better designed studies are needed to make evidence-based results more generalizable.</p></div

Perceived role of mathematical modeling in epidemiology (MME).

<p>Means and standard error (SE) of the responses obtained for each item are shown. Respondents scored each item on a 1–9 scale (1 =  not relevant at all, 9 =  very relevant). Top panel: items from questions Q3 and Q5; bottom panel: items from question Q4. The exact formulations of questions Q3 to Q5 are in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016531#pone-0016531-g001" target="_blank">Figure 1</a>.</p

The questionnaire of the survey.

<p>The questionnaire of the survey.</p

Patients’ perceptions of the importance of several domains related to the content of educational programs.

<p>Any two Bars with different shades of grey correspond to subdomains for which the scores were identified as significantly different by the multiple comparison procedure, whereas all bars with a given identical shade of grey correspond to subdomains for which the scores were identified as non-significantly different.</p