Prioritising wheelchair services for children:a pilot discrete choice experiment to understand how child wheelchair users and their parents prioritise different attributes of wheelchair services

BACKGROUND: Approximately 95 million children worldwide are disabled; 10 % use a wheelchair. In the UK, an estimated 770,000 children are disabled. National Health Service Wheelchair Services are the largest provider of wheelchairs in the UK; however, recent reports have highlighted issues with these services. This study explores the use of discrete choice experiment methods to inform wheelchair service provision for disabled children based on service user preferences. The aim was to explore how disabled children and their parents prioritise different attributes of wheelchair services. The secondary aims were to compare priorities between parents and disabled children and to explore marginal rate of substitution for incremental changes in attributes. METHODS: Discrete choice experiments are a method of attribute-based stated preference valuation used by health economists to understand how individuals prioritise different attributes of healthcare services and treatments. We conducted the first pilot discrete choice experiment to explore how disabled children (aged 11 to 18) and their parents prioritise different attributes of hypothetical wheelchair services. Eleven disabled children (aged 11 to 18) and 30 parents of disabled children completed eight pairwise choice tasks based on five service attributes: wheelchair assessment, cost contribution, training, delivery time and frequency of review. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression. For each pairwise choice, the participants were asked to choose which service scenario (A or B) they preferred. RESULTS: Comprehensiveness of wheelchair assessment and wheelchair delivery time significantly (P < 0.05) affected service preferences of children (β-coefficients = 1.43 [95 % bootstrapped CI = 1.42 to 2.08] and −0.92 [95 % bootstrapped CI = −1.41 to −0.84], respectively) and parents (β-coefficients = 1.53 [95 % bootstrapped CI = 1.45 to 2.16] and −1.37 [95 % bootstrapped CI = −1.99 to −1.31], respectively). Parents were willing to contribute more financially to receive preferred services, although this was non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both samples placed the greatest importance on holistic wheelchair assessments encompassing more than health. The National Health Service should consider using discrete choice experiment methods to examine wheelchair service preferences of disabled children (aged 11 and over) and their parents on a wider scale; however, care must be taken to ensure that this method is used appropriately. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40814-016-0074-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Preferences of older patients regarding hip fracture rehabilitation service configuration:A feasibility discrete choice experiment

Objective: As part of a wider feasibility study, the feasibility of gaining older patients’ views for hip fracture rehabilitation services was tested using a discrete choice experiment in a UK context. Design: Discrete choice experiment is a method used for eliciting individuals’ preferences about goods and services. Subjects/patients: The discrete choice experiment was administered to 41 participants who had experienced hip fracture (mean age 79.3 years; standard deviation (SD) 7.5 years), recruited from a larger feasibility study exploring a new multidisciplinary rehabilitation for hip fracture. Methods: Attributes and levels for this discrete choice experiment were identified from a systematic review and focus groups. The questionnaire was administered at the 3-month follow-up. Results: Participants indicated a significant preference for a fully-qualified physiotherapist or occupational therapist to deliver the rehabilitation sessions (β = 0·605, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.462–0.879), and for their rehabilitation session to last less than 90 min (β = –0.192, 95% CI –0.381 to –0.051). Conclusion: The design of the discrete choice experiment using attributes associated with service configuration could have the potential to inform service implementation, and assist rehabilitation service design that incorporates the preferences of patients

Standardised self-management kits for children with type 1 diabetes: pragmatic randomised trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness:pragmatic randomised trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

Objective To estimate the effectiveness of standardised self-management kits for children with type 1 diabetes. Design Pragmatic trial with randomisation ratio of two intervention: one control. Qualitative process evaluation. Setting 11 diabetes clinics in England and Wales. Participants Between February 2010 and August 2011, we validly randomised 308 children aged 6–18 years; 201 received the intervention. Intervention We designed kits to empower children to achieve glycaemic control, notably by recording blood glucose and titrating insulin. The comparator was usual treatment. Outcome measures at 3 and 6 months Primary: Diabetes Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). Secondary: HbA1c; General PedsQL; EQ-5D; healthcare resource use. Results Of the five Diabetes PedsQL dimensions, Worry showed adjusted scores significantly favouring self-management kits at 3 months (mean child-reported difference =+5.87; Standard error[SE]=2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]) from +1.57 to +10.18; p=0.008); but Treatment Adherence significantly favoured controls at 6 months (mean child-reported difference=−4.68; SE=1.74; 95%CI from −8.10 to −1.25; p=0.008). Intervention children reported significantly worse changes between 3 and 6 months on four of the five Diabetes PedsQL dimensions and on the total score (mean difference=−3.20; SE=1.33; 95% CI from −5.73 to −0.67; p=0.020). There was no evidence of change in HbA1c; only 18% of participants in each group achieved recommended levels at 6 months. No serious adverse reactions attributable to the intervention or its absence were reported. Use of kits was poor. Few children or parents associated blood glucose readings with better glycaemic control. The kits, costing £185, alienated many children and parents. Conclusions Standardised kits showed no evidence of benefit, inhibited diabetes self-management and increased worry. Future research should study relationships between children and professionals, and seek new methods of helping children and parents to manage diabetes

Cost-effectiveness of steroid (methylprednisolone) injections versus anaesthetic alone for the treatment of Morton's neuroma: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial (MortISE trial)

Background: Morton's neuroma is a common foot condition affecting health-related quality of life. Though its management frequently includes steroid injections, evidence of cost-effectiveness is sparse. So, we aimed to evaluate whether steroid injection is cost-effective in treating Morton's neuroma compared with anaesthetic injection alone. Methods: We undertook incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from the perspective of the National Health Service, alongside a patient-blinded pragmatic randomised trial in hospital-based orthopaedic outpatient clinics in Edinburgh, UK. Of the original randomised sample of 131 participants with Morton's neuroma (including 67 controls), economic analysis focused on 109 (including 55 controls). Both groups received injections guided by ultrasound. We estimated the incremental cost per point improvement in the area under the curve of the Foot Health Thermometer (FHT-AUC) until three months after injection. We also conducted cost-utility analyses using European Quality of life-5 Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L), enhanced by the Foot Health Thermometer (FHT), to estimate utility and thus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results: The unit cost of an ultrasound-guided steroid injection was 149. Over the three months of follow-up, the mean cost of National Health Service resources was 280 for intervention participants and 202 for control participants - a difference of 79 [bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (CI): 18 to 152]. The corresponding estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 32 per point improvement in the FHT-AUC (bootstrapped 95% CI: 7 to 100). If decision makers value improvement of one point at 100 (the upper limit of this CI), there is 97.5% probability that steroid injection is cost-effective. As EQ-5D-3L seems unresponsive to changes in foot health, we based secondary cost-utility analysis on the FHT-enhanced EQ-5D. This estimated the corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as 6,400 per QALY. Over the recommended UK threshold, ranging from 20,000 to 30,000 per QALY, there is 80%-85% probability that steroid injection is cost-effective. Conclusions: Steroid injections are effective and cost-effective in relieving foot pain measured by the FHT for three months. However, cost-utility analysis was initially inconclusive because the EQ-5D-3L is less responsive than the FHT to changes in foot health. By using the FHT to enhance the EQ-5D, we inferred that injections yield good value in cost per QALY. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13668166. 2015 Edwards et al.; licensee BioMed Central.sch_pod8pub3897pub

Development of an intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis through primary care: a protocol.

BACKGROUND: GPs can play an important role in achieving earlier cancer diagnosis to improve patient outcomes, for example through prompt use of the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway. Barriers to early diagnosis include individual practitioner variation in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, professional expectations, and norms. AIM: This programme of work (Wales Interventions and Cancer Knowledge about Early Diagnosis [WICKED]) will develop a behaviour change intervention to expedite diagnosis through primary care and contribute to improved cancer outcomes. DESIGN & SETTING: Non-experimental mixed-method study with GPs and primary care practice teams from Wales. METHOD: Four work packages will inform the development of the behaviour change intervention. Work package 1 will identify relevant evidence-based interventions (systematic review of reviews) and will determine why interventions do or do not work, for whom, and in what circumstances (realist review). Work package 2 will assess cancer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour of GPs, as well as primary care teams' perspectives on cancer referral and investigation (GP survey, discrete choice experiment [DCE], interviews, and focus groups). Work package 3 will synthesise findings from earlier work packages using the behaviour change wheel as an overarching theoretical framework to guide intervention development. Work package 4 will test the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and determine methods for measuring costs and effects of subsequent behaviour change in a randomised feasibility trial. RESULTS: The findings will inform the design of a future effectiveness trial, with concurrent economic evaluation, aimed at earlier diagnosis. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive, evidence-based programme will develop a complex GP behaviour change intervention to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, and may be applicable to countries with similar healthcare systems

Improving quality of life through the routine use of the Patient Concerns Inventory for head and neck cancer patients: a cluster preference randomized controlled trial

This trial is funded by the RfPB on behalf of the NIHR (PB-PG-0215-36047).Background: The consequences of treatment for Head and Neck cancer (HNC) patients has profound detrimental impacts such as impaired QOL, emotional distress, delayed recovery and frequent use of healthcare. The aim of this trial is to determine if the routine use of the Patients Concerns Inventory (PCI) package in review clinics during the first year following treatment can improve overall quality of life, reduce the social-emotional impact of cancer and reduce levels of distress. Furthermore, we aim to describe the economic costs and benefits of using the PCI. Methods: This will be a cluster preference randomised control trial with consultants either ‘using’ or ‘not using’ the PCI package at clinic. It will involve two centres Leeds and Liverpool. 416 eligible patients from at least 10 consultant clusters are required to show a clinically meaningful difference in the primary outcome. The primary outcome is the percentage of participants with less than good overall quality of life at the final one-year clinic as measured by the University of Washington QOL questionnaire version 4 (UWQOLv4). Secondary outcomes at one-year are the mean social-emotional subscale (UWQOLv4) score, Distress Thermometer (DT) score ≥ 4, and key health economic measures (QALY-EQ-5D-5 L; CSRI). Discussion: This trial will provide knowledge on the effectiveness of a consultation intervention package based around the PCI used at routine follow-up clinics following treatment of head and neck cancer with curative intent. If this intervention is (cost) effective for patients, the next step will be to promote wider use of this approach as standard care in clinical practice. Trial registration: 32,382. Clinical Trials Identifier, NCT03086629. Protocol: Version 3.0, 1st July 2017.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe