Using Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Models for Chronic Diseases Lessons From Diabetes

Background: Cost-effectiveness models for chronic diseases frequently require simulating the development of disease complications over a long period. Model development often focuses on disease progression, with less attention devoted to costs. Objective: To identify key challenges in incorporating costs in cost-effectiveness models for chronic diseases. Research Design: We use our experience in developing and applying a diabetes cost-effectiveness model to illustrate the challenges in incorporating costs in cost-effectiveness models for chronic diseases. Results: Costs used in cost-effectiveness analyses for chronic diseases are sometimes drawn from a variety of published sources with little concern about consistency between sources or the underlying functional form for costs. Identifying costs of complications in chronic disease modeling often receives inadequate attention compared to the time and effort devoted to modeling disease progression. Costs of averted complications typically cannot be estimated during a trial, because these complications begin to accrue years after the intervention. Complication costs may be estimated through gross-costing, using an additive cost function with individual complication costs derived from difference sources, or through cost regressions that apply a multiplicative functional form using a single data source. The choice between additive and multiplicative cost functions may affect the cost-effectiveness ratios generated by the model. Current guidelines do not provide much guidance on choosing between the costing approaches. Conclusions: Developing a set of standard cost estimates might streamline the modeling process for chronic diseases, but standard

Health Economics in Public Health

BACKGROUND: Economic analysis is an important tool in deciding how to allocate scarce public health resources; however, there is currently a dearth of such analysis by public health researchers. METHODS: Public health researchers and practitioners were surveyed to determine their current use of health economics and to identify barriers to use as well as potential strategies to decrease those barriers in order to allow them to more effectively incorporate economic analyses into their work. Data collected from five focus groups informed survey development. The survey included a demographic section and 14 multi-part questions. Participants were recruited in 2006 from three national public health organizations through e-mail; 294 academicians, practitioners, and community representatives answered the survey. RESULTS: Survey data were analyzed in 2007. Despite an expressed belief in the importance of health economics, more than half of the respondents reported very little or no current use of health economics in their work. Of those using health economics, cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis and determination of public health costs were cited as the measures used most frequently. The most important barriers were lack of expertise, funding, time, tools, and data, as well as discomfort with economic theory. The resource deemed most important to using health economics was collaboration with economists or those with economic training. Respondents indicated a desire to learn more about health economics and tools for performing economic analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Given the importance of incorporating economic analysis into public health interventions, and the desire of survey respondents for more collaboration with health economists, opportunities for such collaborations should be increased

A cluster randomised trial of educational messages to improve the primary care of diabetes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Regular laboratory test monitoring of patient parameters offers a route for improving the quality of chronic disease care. We evaluated the effects of brief educational messages attached to laboratory test reports on diabetes care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A programme of cluster randomised controlled trials was set in primary care practices in one primary care trust in England. Participants were the primary care practices' constituent healthcare professionals and patients with diabetes. Interventions comprised brief educational messages added to paper and electronic primary care practice laboratory test reports and introduced over two phases. Phase one messages, attached to Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reports, targeted glycaemic and cholesterol control. Phase two messages, attached to albumin:creatinine ratio (ACR) reports, targeted blood pressure (BP) control, and foot inspection. Main outcome measures comprised practice mean HbA1c and cholesterol levels, diastolic and systolic BP, and proportions of patients having undergone foot inspections.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Initially, 35 out of 37 eligible practices participated. Outcome data were available for a total of 8,690 patients with diabetes from 32 practices. The BP message produced a statistically significant reduction in diastolic BP (-0.62 mmHg; 95% confidence interval -0.82 to -0.42 mmHg) but not systolic BP (-0.06 mmHg, -0.42 to 0.30 mmHg) and increased the odds of achieving target BP control (odds ratio 1.05; 1.00, 1.10). The foot inspection message increased the likelihood of a recorded foot inspection (incidence rate ratio 1.26; 1.18 to 1.36). The glycaemic control message had no effect on mean HbA1c (increase 0.01%; -0.03 to 0.04) despite increasing the odds of a change in likelihood of HbA1c tests being ordered (OR 1.06; 1.01, 1.11). The cholesterol message had no effect (decrease 0.01 mmol/l, -0.04 to 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Three out of four interventions improved intermediate outcomes or process of diabetes care. The diastolic BP reduction approximates to relative reductions in mortality of 3% to 5% in stroke and 3% to 4% in ischaemic heart disease over 10 years. The lack of effect for other outcomes may, in part, be explained by difficulties in bringing about further improvements beyond certain thresholds of clinical performance.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials, <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN2186314">ISRCTN2186314</a>.</p

The Heidelberg Milestones Communication Approach (MCA) for patients with prognosis &lt;12 months: protocol for a mixed-methods study including a randomized controlled trial

Background: The care needs of patients with a limited prognosis (&lt;12 months median) are complex and dynamic. Patients and caregivers must cope with many challenges, including physical symptoms and disabilities, uncertainty. and compromised self-efficacy. Healthcare is often characterized by disruptions in the transition between healthcare providers. The Milestones Communication Approach (MCA) is a structured, proactive, interprofessional concept that involves physicians and nurses and is aimed at providing coherent care across the disease trajectory. This study aims to evaluate these aspects of MCA: (1) the training of healthcare professionals, (2) implementation context and outcomes, (3) patient outcomes, and (4) effects on interprofessional collaboration. Methods/design: A multiphase mixed-methods design will be used for the study. A total of 100 patients and 120 healthcare professionals in a specialized oncology hospital will be involved. The training outcomes will be documented using a questionnaire. Implementation context and outcomes will be explored through semi-structured interviews and written questionnaires with healthcare professionals and with the training participants and through a content analysis of patient files. Patient outcomes will be assessed in a pragmatic non-blinded randomized controlled trial and in qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers. Trial outcomes are supportive care needs (SCNS-SF34-G), quality of life (SeiQol and Fact-L), depression and anxiety symptoms (PHQ-4), and distress (Distress Thermometer). Qualitative semi-structured interviews on patients’ views will focus on shared decision-making, communication needs, feeling empathy, and further utilization of healthcare services. Interprofessional collaboration will be explored using the UWE-IP-D before the implementation of MCA (t0) and after 3 (t1), 9 (t2), and 12 (t3) months. Discussion: Using guideline-concordant early palliative care, MCA aims to foster patient-centered communication with shared decision-making and facilitation of advance care planning including end-of-life decisions, thus increasing patient quality of life and decreasing aggressive medical care at the end of life. It is assumed that the communication skills training and interprofessional coaching will improve the communication behavior of healthcare providers and influence team communications and team processes. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00013649 and DRKS00013469. Registered on 22 December 2017

Integration of oncology and palliative care : a Lancet Oncology Commission

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care