Comparison of Economic Evaluation Methods Across Low-income, Middle-income and High-income Countries: What are the Differences and Why?

There are marked differences in methods used for undertaking economic evaluations across low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. We outline the most apparent dissimilarities and reflect on their underlying reasons. We randomly sampled 50 studies from each of three country income groups from a comprehensive database of 2844 economic evaluations published between January 2012 and May 2014. Data were extracted on ten methodological areas: (i) availability of guidelines; (ii) research questions; (iii) perspective; (iv) cost data collection methods; (v) cost data analysis; (vi) outcome measures; (vii) modelling techniques; (viii) cost-effectiveness thresholds; (ix) uncertainty analysis; and (x) applicability. Comparisons were made across income groups and odds ratios calculated. Contextual heterogeneity rightly drives some of the differences identified. Other differences appear less warranted and may be attributed to variation in government health sector capacity, in health economics research capacity and in expectations of funders, journals and peer reviewers. By highlighting these differences, we seek to start a debate about the underlying reasons why they have occurred and to what extent the differences are conducive for methodological advancements. We suggest a number of specific areas in which researchers working in countries of differing environments could learn from one another

The use of EORTC measures in daily clinical practice-A synopsis of a newly developed manual.

Cancer has increasingly become a chronic condition and the routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) like quality of life is widely recommended for clinical practice. Nonetheless, the successful implementation of PROs is still a major challenge, although common barriers to and facilitators of their beneficial use are well known. To support health care professionals and other stakeholders in the implementation of the EORTC PRO measures, the EORTC Quality of Life Group provides guidance on issues considered important for their use in daily clinical practice. Herein, we present an outline of the newly developed "'Manual for the use of EORTC measures in daily clinical practice", covering the following issues: * a rationale for using EORTC measures in routine care *selection of EORTC measures, timing of assessments, scoring and presentation of results * aspects of a strategic implementation * electronic data assessment and telemonitoring, and * further use of EORTC measures and ethical considerations. Next to an extensive overview of currently available literature, the manual specifically focuses on knowledge about EORTC measures to give evidence-based recommendations whenever possible and to encourage readers and end-users of EORTC measures to contribute to further needed high-quality research. The manual will be accessible on the EORTC Quality of Life Group website's homepage and will be periodically updated to take into account any new knowledge due to medical, technical, regulatory and scientific advances

Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (4 of 7): delivery of interventions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The efficacious interventions identified in the previous article of this report will fail unless they are delivered at high and equitable coverage. This article discusses critical delivery constraints and strategies.</p> <p>Barriers to scaling up interventions</p> <p>Achieving universal coverage entails addressing major barriers at many levels. An overarching constraint is the lack of political will, resulting from the dearth of preterm birth and stillbirth data and the lack of visibility. Other barriers exist at the household and community levels, such as insufficient demand for interventions or sociocultural barriers; at the health services level, such as a lack of resources and trained healthcare providers; and at the health sector policy and management level, such as poorly functioning, centralized systems. Additional constraints involve weak governance and accountability, political instability, and challenges in the physical environment.</p> <p>Strategies and examples</p> <p>Scaling up maternal, newborn and child health interventions requires strengthening health systems, but there is also a role for focused, targeted interventions. Choosing a strategy involves identifying appropriate channels for reaching high coverage, which depends on many factors such as access to and attendance at healthcare facilities. Delivery channels vary, and may include facility- and community-based healthcare providers, mass media campaigns, and community-based approaches and marketing strategies. Issues related to scaling up are discussed in the context of four interventions that may be given to mothers at different stages throughout pregnancy or to newborns: (1) detection and treatment of syphilis; (2) emergency Cesarean section; (3) newborn resuscitation; and (4) kangaroo mother care. Systematic reviews of the literature and large-scale implementation studies are analyzed for each intervention.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Equitable and successful scale-up of preterm birth and stillbirth interventions will require addressing multiple barriers, and utilizing multiple delivery approaches and channels. Another important need is developing strategies to discontinue ineffective or harmful interventions. Preterm birth and stillbirth interventions must also be placed in the broader maternal, newborn and child health context to identify and prioritize those that will help improve several outcomes at the same time. The next article discusses advocacy challenges and opportunities.</p

Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR): study protocol for a phase II randomised feasibility study of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture

Objective: To conduct a rigorous feasibility study for a future definitive parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation of an enhanced rehabilitation package for hip fracture.Setting: Recruitment from 3 acute hospitals in North Wales. Intervention delivery in the community.Participants: Older adults (aged ≥65) who received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area.Intervention: Remote randomisation to usual care (control) or usual care+enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention), including six additional home-based physiotherapy sessions delivered by a physiotherapist or technical instructor, novel information workbook and goal-setting diary.Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary: Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL). Secondary measures included Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale (NEADL), EQ-5D, ICECAP capability, a suite of self-efficacy, psychosocial and service-use measures and costs. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers.Results: 62 participants were recruited, 61 randomised (control 32; intervention 29) and 49 (79%) completed 3-month follow-up. Minimal differences occurred between the 2 groups for most outcomes, including BADL (adjusted mean difference 0.5). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement in the NEADL relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen's d 0.63), and a trend for greater improvement in self-efficacy and mental health, but with small effect sizes. The mean cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a small relative improvement in quality-adjusted life year in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported.Conclusions: The trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation package should be tested in a phase III RCT