Clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of two aftercare models provided by general physicians and nurses to patients with severe mental illness

Background: Implementing community-based psychiatric services is one of the priorities of the WHO/EMRO mental health programs. This study presents an aftercare service, as a community based-service, for patients with severe mental illness (SMIs). Methods: In this randomized controlled clinical trial design, 176 patients, who attended selective hospitals with SMI, were allocated into three groups: clinical case managers provided by general practitioners, nurses and the control group (usual treatment). The clients and their caregivers received monthly home visits (education and treatment supervision). The effectiveness of the intervention was measured by indicators of psychopathology such as scores of YOUNG, caregivers' knowledge and satisfaction with the services. Health-related quality of life (SF-36) was considered as the primary outcome variable. Data were collected at baseline and at 12 months follow-up. Direct and indirect medical costs were obtained through a periodic completion of questionnaires and interviews by care-givers. Cost effectiveness ratio was estimated as cost per QALY gained in each group. SPSS 16.0 was used in this survey and statistical methods were chi-square, ANOVA, Scheffe as post-Hoc test and paired sample t-test with 95 confidence interval and 0.05 significance level. Results: The results of our study revealed that the score of YOUNG, caregivers' knowledge and satisfaction with service were improved in both intervention groups after 12 months. Improvement in health-related quality of life was observed in the general practitioner and nurse group. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was 5740807 IRR and 5048459 IRR per QALYs gained in the general practitioner and nurse groups, respectively. Conclusion: The model of aftercare services provided by trained nurses is the most cost- effective and feasible model for Iran's socio-economic conditions with low resource allocations

MASCC/ISOO expert opinion on the management of oral problems in patients with advanced cancer

Purpose: The Palliative Care Study Group in conjunction with the Oral Care Study Group of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) formed a sub-group to develop evidence-based guidance on the management of common oral problems in patients with advanced cancer. Methods: This guidance was developed in accordance with the MASCC Guidelines Policy. A search strategy for Medline was developed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were explored for relevant reviews and trials, respectively. Guidance was categorised by the level of evidence, and “category of guideline” (i.e., “recommendation”, “suggestion” or “no guideline possible”). Results: Twelve generic suggestions (level of evidence – 5), three problem-specific recommendations and 14 problem-specific suggestions were generated. The generic suggestions relate to oral hygiene measures, assessment of problems, principles of management, re-assessment of problems and the role of dental/oral medicine professionals. Conclusions: This guidance provides a framework for the management of common oral problems in patients with advanced cancer, although every patient requires individualised management

MASCC/ISOO expert opinion on the management of oral problems in patients with advanced cancer

Purpose The Palliative Care Study Group in conjunction with the Oral Care Study Group of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) formed a sub-group to develop evidence-based guidance on the management of common oral problems in patients with advanced cancer. Methods This guidance was developed in accordance with the MASCC Guidelines Policy. A search strategy for Medline was developed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were explored for relevant reviews and trials, respectively. Guidance was categorised by the level of evidence, and "category of guideline" (i.e., "recommendation", "suggestion" or "no guideline possible"). Results Twelve generic suggestions (level of evidence - 5), three problem-specific recommendations and 14 problem-specific suggestions were generated. The generic suggestions relate to oral hygiene measures, assessment of problems, principles of management, re-assessment of problems and the role of dental/oral medicine professionals. Conclusions This guidance provides a framework for the management of common oral problems in patients with advanced cancer, although every patient requires individualised management