Long-term cost-effectiveness of screening for fracture risk in a UK primary care setting: the SCOOP study

SummaryCommunity-based screening and treatment of women aged 70–85 years at high fracture risk reduced fractures; moreover, the screening programme was cost-saving. The results support a case for a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK.IntroductionThe SCOOP (screening for prevention of fractures in older women) randomized controlled trial investigated whether community-based screening could reduce fractures in women aged 70–85 years. The objective of this study was to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of screening for fracture risk in a UK primary care setting compared with usual management, based on the SCOOP study.MethodsA health economic Markov model was used to predict the life-time consequences in terms of costs and quality of life of the screening programme compared with the control arm. The model was populated with costs related to drugs, administration and screening intervention derived from the SCOOP study. Fracture risk reduction in the screening arm compared with the usual management arm was derived from SCOOP. Modelled fracture risk corresponded to the risk observed in SCOOP.ResultsScreening of 1000 patients saved 9 hip fractures and 20 non-hip fractures over the remaining lifetime (mean 14 years) compared with usual management. In total, the screening arm saved costs (£286) and gained 0.015 QALYs/patient in comparison with usual management arm.ConclusionsThis analysis suggests that a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK would gain quality of life and life years, and reduce fracture costs to more than offset the cost of running the programme.</p

Understanding primary care diagnosis and management of sleep disturbance for people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment: a realist review protocol

Introduction The increasingly ageing population is associated with greater numbers of people living with dementia (PLwD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). There are an estimated 55 million PLwD and approximately 6% of people over 60 years of age are living with MCI, with the figure rising to 25% for those aged between 80 and 84 years. Sleep disturbances are common for this population, but there is currently no standardised approach within UK primary care to manage this. Coined as a ‘wicked design problem’, sleep disturbances in this population are complex, with interventions supporting best management in context. Methods and analysis The aim of this realist review is to deepen our understanding of what is considered ‘sleep disturbance’ in PLwD or MCI within primary care. Specifically, we endeavour to better understand how sleep disturbance is assessed, diagnosed and managed. To co-produce this protocol and review, we have recruited a stakeholder group comprising individuals with lived experience of dementia or MCI, primary healthcare staff and sleep experts. This review will be conducted in line with Pawson’s five stages including the development of our initial programme theory, literature searches and the refinement of theory. The Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) quality and reporting standards will also be followed. The realist review will be an iterative process and our initial realist programme theory will be tested and refined in response to our data searches and stakeholder discussions. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this review. We will follow the RAMESES standards to ensure we produce a complete and transparent report. Our final programme theory will help us to devise a tailored sleep management tool for primary healthcare professionals, PLwD and their carers. Our dissemination strategy will include lay summaries via email and our research website, peer-reviewed publications and social media posts.</p