The UK NHS Economic Evaluation Database : Economic issues in evaluations of health technology

Objective: The U.K. NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) project is commissioned to identify papers on economic evaluations of health technologies and to disseminate their findings to NHS decision makers by means of structured abstracts that are available through a public database and the Cochrane Library. This paper discusses current issues relating to the economic aspects of producing NHS EED abstracts. Methods: A review of NHS EED was undertaken between 1994 and 1999 to determine the methodologies adopted and issues that influence the usefulness of economic evaluations. Methods adopted to improve the quality of NHS EED abstracts are also reported. Results: Eighty-five percent of NHS EED abstracts are cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), 9.3% are cost-utility analyses (CUAs), and only 1.4% are cost-benefit analyses (CBAs). Of the total abstracts, 65.9% are based on single studies, 19.5% on reviews, 3.9% on estimates of effectiveness, and 10.7% on combinations of these sources. Models are utilized in 16.7% of CEAs, 60.2% of CUAs, and 20% of CBAs. Analyses of CBA studies reveal a degree of misuse of well-established definitions. NHS EED internal control mechanisms are reported that provide a means of ensuring that abstracts are based on sound academic principles. Conclusions: Most economic evaluations are conducted by means of CEA, followed by CUA, while CBA accounts for an extreme minority of cases. Single studies form the principal source of effectiveness data, although models are widely used, principally in CUA. The structure of NHS EED abstracts provides decision makers with the principal results and an interpretation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of economic evaluations

Interventions for female drug-using offenders (Review)

Kumar KM,

Assessing the impact of tailored biosecurity advice on farmer behaviour and pathogen presence in beef herds in England and Wales

The term ‘biosecurity’ encompasses many measures farmers can take to reduce the risk of pathogen incursion or spread. As the best strategy will vary between settings, veterinarians play an important role in assessing risk and providing advice, but effectiveness requires farmer acceptance and implementation. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of specifically-tailored biosecurity advice packages in reducing endemic pathogen presence on UK beef suckler farms. One hundred and sixteen farms recruited by 10 veterinary practices were followed for three years. Farms were randomly allocated to intervention (receiving specifically-tailored advice, with veterinarians and farmers collaborating to develop an improved biosecurity strategy) or control (receiving general advice) groups. A spreadsheet-based tool was used annually to attribute a score to each farm reflecting risk of entry or spread of bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV), bovine herpesvirus-1 (BHV1), Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP), Leptospira interrogans serovar hardjo (L. hardjo) and Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis). Objectives of these analyses were to identify evidence of reduction in risk behaviours during the study, as well as evidence of reductions in pathogen presence, as indications of effectiveness. Risk behaviours and pathogen prevalences were examined across study years, and on intervention compared with control farms, using descriptive statistics and multilevel regression. There were significant reductions in risk scores for all five pathogens, regardless of intervention status, in every study year compared with the outset. Animals on intervention farms were significantly less likely than those on control farms to be seropositive for BVDV in years 2 and 3 and for L. hardjo in year 3 of the study. Variations by study year in animal-level odds of seropositivity to BHV1 or MAP were not associated with farm intervention status. All farms had significantly reduced odds of BHV1 seropositivity in year 2 than at the outset. Variations in farm-level MAP seropositivity were not associated with intervention status. There were increased odds of M. bovis on intervention farms compared with control farms at the end of the study. Results suggest a structured annual risk assessment process, conducted as a collaboration between veterinarian and farmer, is valuable in encouraging improved biosecurity practices. There were some indications, but not conclusive evidence, that tailored biosecurity advice packages have potential to reduce pathogen presence. These findings will inform development of a collaborative approach to biosecurity between veterinarians and farmers, including adoption of cost-effective strategies effective across pathogens

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

Background This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug‐using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both. Search methods We searched 12 electronic bibliographic databases up to February 2019. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results We included 13 trials with 2560 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (7/13 studies, 53%) and community (6/13 studies, 47%) settings. The rating of bias was affected by the lack of clear reporting by authors, and we rated many items as 'unclear'. In two studies (190 participants) collaborative case management in comparison to treatment as usual did not reduce drug use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 2.12; 1 study, 77 participants; low‐certainty evidence), reincarceration at nine months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.57; 1 study, 77 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and number of subsequent arrests at 12 months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.49; 1 study, 113 participants; low‐certainty evidence). One study (36 participants) comparing buprenorphine to placebo showed no significant reduction in self‐reported drug use at end of treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20) and three months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35); very low‐certainty evidence. No adverse events were reported. One study (38 participants) comparing interpersonal psychotherapy to a psychoeducational intervention did not find reduction in drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; low‐certainty evidence). One study (31 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to a waiting list showed no significant reduction in self‐reported drug use using the Addiction Severity Index (mean difference (MD) ‐0.04, 95% CI ‐0.37 to 0.29) and abstinence from drug use at six months (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43); low‐certainty evidence. One study (314 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills to a therapeutic community programme and aftercare showed no significant reduction in self‐reported drug use (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.27), re‐arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03); criminal activity (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03), or drug‐related crime (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32). A significant reduction for arrested (not for parole) violations at six months follow‐up was significantly in favour of cognitive behavioural skills (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77; very low‐certainty evidence). A second study with 115 participants comparing cognitive behavioural skills to an alternative substance abuse treatment showed no significant reduction in reincarceration at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.12; low certainty‐evidence. One study (44 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills and standard therapy versus treatment as usual showed no significant reduction in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) drug score at three months (MD 0.02, 95% CI ‐0.05 to 0.09) and six months (MD ‐0.02, 95% CI ‐0.09 to 0.05), and incarceration at three months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.68) and six months (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27); very low‐certainty evidence. One study (171 participants) comparing a single computerised intervention versus case management showed no significant reduction in the number of days not using drugs at three months (MD ‐0.89, 95% CI ‐4.83 to 3.05; low certainty‐evidence). One study (116 participants) comparing dialectic behavioural therapy and case management (DBT‐CM) versus a health promotion intervention showed no significant reduction at six months follow‐up in positive drug testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03), number of people not using marijuana (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59), crack (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), cocaine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12), heroin (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), methamphetamine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20), and self‐reported drug use for any drug (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.56); very low‐certainty evidence. One study (211 participants) comparing a therapeutic community programme versus work release showed no significant reduction in marijuana use at six months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.65), nor 18 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45), heroin use at six months (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14), nor 18 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.24 to 15.37), crack use at six months (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.41), nor 18 months (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.06), cocaine use at six months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50), nor 18 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35). It also showed no significant reduction in incarceration for drug offences at 18 months (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42); with overall very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence. One study (511 participants) comparing intensive discharge planning and case management versus prison only showed no significant reduction in use of marijuana (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16), hard drugs (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43), crack cocaine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.54), nor positive hair testing for marijuana (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03); it found a significant reduction in arrests (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87), but no significant reduction in drug charges (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.53) nor incarceration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39); moderate‐certainty evidence. One narrative study summary (211 participants) comparing buprenorphine pre‐ and post‐release from prison showed no significant reduction in drug use at 12 months post‐release; low certainty‐evidence. No adverse effects were reported. Authors' conclusions The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons, outcome measures and small samples. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required. On one outcome of arrest (no parole violations), we identified a significant reduction when cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was compared to a therapeutic community programme. But for all other outcomes, none of the interventions were effective. Larger trials are required to increase the precision of confidence about the certainty of evidence

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders : an update to a systematic review and meta-analysis

This updated systematic review assesses the effects of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders. Methods Systematic review protocols and conventions of the Cochrane Collaboration were followed to identify eligible studies. Studies were pooled in a meta-analysis to assess the impact of pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity. An economic appraisal was conducted. Results The search strategies identified 22 studies containing 4372 participants. Meta-analyses revealed a small statistically significant mean difference favouring pharmacological interventions relative to psychological interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity. When comparing the drugs to one another there were no significant differences between those included (methadone versus buprenorphine, naltrexone and cyclazocine). Conclusion Overall, the findings of this review suggest that methadone and naltrexone may have some impact on reducing drug use and reincarceration. Individual pharmacological drugs had differing (generally non-significant) effects. One study identified serious adverse events. Three studies reported cost and consequences information sufficient to conduct a full economic analysis but this was not comprehensive enough to be able to make judgements across all treatment options. Full economic analyses should be encouraged. The study findings were limited mainly to male adult offenders