Generic quality of life utility measures in health-care research: Conceptual issues highlighted for the most commonly used utility measures

Purpose. Effectiveness of health interventions is often measured by means of generic utility measures (e.g., EQ-5D). These measures focus on aspects of QoL that can be expected to be affected by health-care interventions. We argue that traditional health-related utility measures are based on a relatively narrow focus on the concept of QoL. Therefore, to better judge the effectiveness of health interventions, measures need to go beyond traditional health-related QoL utility measures. Methods. We conducted an analysis of the definitions and questions of the five most commonly used generic utility measures: the EQ-5D, SF-6D, QWB-SA, HUI2 and HUI3.Results. Traditional health-related QoL utility measures are based on a relatively narrow focus on the concept of health and health-related QoL. We illustrate this narrow focus by zooming in on two issues: a) the focus on a too selective number of domains; and b) the use of a narrow interpretation of the features that can be part of domains.Conclusions.We believe that using insights from different backgrounds and research fields (i.e., the subjective wellbeing approach and capabilities approach) will result in a more complete operationalization of health and health-related QoL and hence will ultimately facilitate the allocation of health-care resources to interventions that are most effective in increasing people’s (health-related) QoL.

Effects and costs of home-based training with telemonitoring guidance in low to moderate risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation: The FIT@Home study

BACKGROUND: Physical training has beneficial effects on exercise capacity, quality of life and mortality in patients after a cardiac event or intervention and is therefore a core component of cardiac rehabilitation. However, cardiac rehabilitation uptake is low and effects tend to decrease after the initial rehabilitation period. Home-based training has the potential to increase cardiac rehabilitation uptake, and was shown to be safe and effective in improving short-term exercise capacity. Long-term effects on physical fitness and activity, however, are disappointing. Therefore, we propose a novel strategy using telemonitoring guidance based on objective training data acquired during exercise at home. In this way, we aim to improve self-management skills like self-efficacy and action planning for independent exercise and, consequently, improve long-term effectiveness with respect to physical fitness and physical activity. In addition, we aim to compare costs of this strategy with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. METHODS/DESIGN: This randomized controlled trial compares a 12-week telemonitoring guided home-based training program with a regular, 12-week centre-based training program of equal duration and training intensity in low to moderate risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation after an acute coronary syndrome or cardiac intervention. The home-based group receives three supervised training sessions before they commence training with a heart rate monitor in their home environment. Participants are instructed to train at 70-85% of their maximal heart rate for 45–60 minutes, twice a week. Patients receive individual coaching by telephone once a week, based on measured heart rate data that are shared through the internet. Primary endpoints are physical fitness and physical activity, assessed at baseline, after 12 weeks and after one year. Physical fitness is expressed as peak oxygen uptake, assessed by symptom limited exercise testing with gas exchange analysis; physical activity is expressed as physical activity energy expenditure, assessed by tri-axial accelerometry and heart rate measurements. Secondary endpoints are training adherence, quality of life, patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This study will increase insight in long-term effectiveness and costs of home-based cardiac rehabilitation with telemonitoring guidance. This strategy is in line with the trend to shift non-complex healthcare services towards patients’ home environments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register: NTR3780. Clinicaltrials.gov register: NCT0173241

Relational coordination in value-based health care

Background An important element of value-based health care (VBHC) is interprofessional collaboration in integrated practice units (IPUs) for the delivery of the complete cycle of care. High levels of interprofessional collaboration between clinical and nonclinical staff in IPUs are assumed rather than proven. Factors that may stimulate interprofessional collaboration in the context of VBHC are underresearched. Purpose The aim of this study was to examine relational coordination (RC) in VBHC and its antecedents. Approach A questionnaire was used to examine the association of both team practices and organizational conditions with interprofessional collaboration in IPUs. Gittell's Relational Coordination Survey was drawn upon to measure interprofessional collaboration by capturing the relational dynamics in coordinated working. The questionnaire also included measures of team practices (team meetings and boundary spanning behavior) and organizational conditions (task interdependence and time constraints). Results The number of different professional groups participating in team meetings is positively associated with RC in IPUs. Boundary spanning behavior, task interdependence, and time constraints are not associated with RC. Conclusions In IPUs, the diversity within interprofessional team meetings is important for establishing high-quality communication and relationships. Practice Implications Hospital managers should prioritize facilitating and encouraging shared meetings to enhance RC levels among professional groups in IPUs.</p

Societal preferences for standard health insurance coverage in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION: Cost-effectiveness is an important criterion in the decision to cover interventions in health insurance packages. One of the outcome measures, the quality-adjusted life year, has been criticised on its assumptions and implications concerning life expectancy and quality of life. Several studies have been conducted that measured societal preferences concerning healthcare rationing decisions. These studies mainly focused on one attribute. To adjust quality-adjusted life year maximisation in accordance with societal preferences, the relative importance of attributes should be studied. The present study aims to measure the relative importance of age, gender, socioeconomic status, pre-intervention health state, treatment effect, chance of treatment success and number of people in need of the intervention. A secondary objective is to compare the validity of the willingness to pay method with the validity of a relatively new preference elicitation method, best-worst scaling. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A representative sample of 2000 Dutch citizens, over 18 years of age, are recruited to complete a web-based survey containing treatment scenarios. The scenarios present different levels of attributes. Respondents are asked to select one of the four scenarios that they prefer to be covered by the Dutch standard health insurance package and one that they prefer not to be covered. They are also asked to indicate how much they are willing to pay for each treatment scenario. At the end of the survey, respondents are asked to rate every attribute on a 1-10 scale. Two versions of the questionnaire are developed which differ on the framing, that is, treatments can be added to or removed from the insurance package. The data will be analysed by means of sequential conditional logit analysis (best-worst scaling) and analysis of variance (willingness to pay). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol is reviewed and approved by the medical ethical committee of the University Medical Center Leiden.Medical Decision MakingAnalysis and support of clinical decision makin

Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: comparison of screening policies

BACKGROUND: Recommended screening policies for cervical cancer differ widely among countries with respect to targeted age range, screening interval, and total number of scheduled screening examinations (i.e., Pap smears). We compared the efficiency of cervical cancer-screening programs by performing a cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer-screening policies from high-income countries. METHODS: We used the microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) program to model and determine the costs and effects of almost 500 screening policies, some fictitious and some actual (i.e., recommended by national guidelines). The costs (in U.S. dollars) and effects (in years of life gained) were compared for each policy to identify the most efficient policies. RESULTS: There were 15 efficient screening policies (i.e., no alternative policy exists that results in more life-years gained for lower costs). For these policies, which considered two to 40 total scheduled examinations, the age range expanded gradually from 40-52 years to 20-80 years as the screening interval decreased from 12 to 1.5 years. For the efficient policies, the predicted gain in life expectancy ranged from 11.6 to 32.4 days, compared with a gain of 46 days if cervical cancer mortality were eliminated entirely. The average cost-effectiveness ratios increased from $6700 (for the longest screening interval) to$23 900 per life-year gained. For some countries, the recommended screening policies were close to efficient, but the cost-effectiveness could be improved by reducing the number of scheduled examinations, starting them at later ages, or lengthening the screening interval. CONCLUSIONS: The basis for the diversity in the screening policies among high-income countries does not appear to relate to the screening policies' cost-effectiveness ratios, which are highly sensitive to the number of Pap smears offered during a lifetime

Differing Professional Perspectives on the Interprofessional Collaboration in IPUs: A Mixed-methods Study

Introduction: An important aspect of Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) is providing the full cycle of care for a specific medical condition through interprofessional collaboration. This requires employees from diverse professional backgrounds to interact, but there is limited knowledge on how professionals perceive such interprofessional collaboration. We aimed to provide insight into how different professionals perceive Integrated Practice Unit (IPU) composition and what factors influence the quality of interprofessional collaboration within IPUs. Methods: A survey was administered to employees from different professional backgrounds (medical specialists, nurses, allied health professionals, administrative employees) working in IPUs to assess their perception of the composition of their IPU and the quality of the interactions. Subsequently, semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the findings of the survey. Results: Medical specialists and nurses were most frequently considered to be part of an IPU and indicated that they have high quality interactions. Allied health professionals were less often considered part of the team by all other professional groups and all report low quality interaction with this group. The extent to which a professional group is perceived as a team member depends on their visibility, involvement in the treatment of the patient, and shared interest. Differences in the quality of interprofessional collaboration are influenced by organizational structures, knowledge of each other’s expertise, and by ways of communication. Conclusions: In VBHC, there seems to be a lack of common perception of an IPU’s composition and a failure to always achieve high quality interprofessional collaboration. Given the importance of interprofessional collaboration in VBHC, effort should be invested in achieving a shared understanding and improved collaboration

Long-term quality of life and cost-effectiveness of treatment of partial thickness burns: A randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel vs silver sulfadiazine (FLAM study)

The clinical effectiveness and scar quality of the randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) for treatment of partial thickness burns were previously reported. Enzyme alginogel did not lead to faster wound healing (primary outcome) or less scar formation. In the current study, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL), costs, and cost-effectiveness of enzyme alginogel compared with SSD in the treatment of partial thickness burns were studied. HRQoL was evaluated using the Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief (BSHS-B) and the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire 1 week before discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months postburn. Costs were studied from a societal perspective (health care and nonhealth-care costs) for a follow-up period of 1 year. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and comparing differences in societal costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) at 1 year postburn. Forty-one patients were analyzed in the enzyme alginogel group and 48 patients in the SSD group. None o

(Cost-)effectiveness of an individualised risk prediction tool (PERSARC) on patient’s knowledge and decisional conflict among soft-tissue sarcomas patients:protocol for a parallel cluster randomised trial (the VALUE-PERSARC study)

Introduction Current treatment decision-making in high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) care is not informed by individualised risks for different treatment options and patients’ preferences. Risk prediction tools may provide patients and professionals insight in personalised risks and benefits for different treatment options and thereby potentially increase patients’ knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. The VALUE-PERSARC study aims to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (PERSARC) to increase patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and to reduce decisional conflict in comparison with usual care in high-grade extremity STS patients. Methods The VALUE-PERSARC study is a parallel cluster randomised control trial that aims to include at least 120 primarily diagnosed high-grade extremity STS patients in 6 Dutch hospitals. Eligible patients (≥18 years) are those without a treatment plan and treated with curative intent. Patients with sarcoma subtypes or treatment options not mentioned in PERSARC are unable to participate. Hospitals will be randomised between usual care (control) or care with the use of PERSARC (intervention). In the intervention condition, PERSARC will be used by STS professionals in multidisciplinary tumour boards to guide treatment advice and in patient consultations, where the oncological/ orthopaedic surgeon informs the patient about his/her diagnosis and discusses benefits and harms of all relevant treatment options. The primary outcomes are patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) 1 week after the treatment decision has been made. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using questionnaires, 1 week and 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment decision. Data will be analysed following an intention-to-treat approach using a linear mixed model and taking into account clustering of patients within hospitals. Ethics and dissemination The Medical Ethical Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (METC-LDD) approved this protocol (NL76563.058.21). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-review journal.</p

(Cost-)effectiveness of an individualised risk prediction tool (PERSARC) on patient’s knowledge and decisional conflict among soft-tissue sarcomas patients:protocol for a parallel cluster randomised trial (the VALUE-PERSARC study)

Introduction Current treatment decision-making in high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) care is not informed by individualised risks for different treatment options and patients’ preferences. Risk prediction tools may provide patients and professionals insight in personalised risks and benefits for different treatment options and thereby potentially increase patients’ knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. The VALUE-PERSARC study aims to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (PERSARC) to increase patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and to reduce decisional conflict in comparison with usual care in high-grade extremity STS patients. Methods The VALUE-PERSARC study is a parallel cluster randomised control trial that aims to include at least 120 primarily diagnosed high-grade extremity STS patients in 6 Dutch hospitals. Eligible patients (≥18 years) are those without a treatment plan and treated with curative intent. Patients with sarcoma subtypes or treatment options not mentioned in PERSARC are unable to participate. Hospitals will be randomised between usual care (control) or care with the use of PERSARC (intervention). In the intervention condition, PERSARC will be used by STS professionals in multidisciplinary tumour boards to guide treatment advice and in patient consultations, where the oncological/ orthopaedic surgeon informs the patient about his/her diagnosis and discusses benefits and harms of all relevant treatment options. The primary outcomes are patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) 1 week after the treatment decision has been made. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using questionnaires, 1 week and 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment decision. Data will be analysed following an intention-to-treat approach using a linear mixed model and taking into account clustering of patients within hospitals. Ethics and dissemination The Medical Ethical Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (METC-LDD) approved this protocol (NL76563.058.21). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-review journal.</p