A cost-effectiveness analysis of self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crises in perioperative medicine in Canada.

PurposeHigh-fidelity simulation training is effective for learning crisis resource management (CRM) skills, but cost is a major barrier to implementing high-fidelity simulation training into the curriculum. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of self-debriefing and traditional instructor debriefing in CRM training programs and to calculate the minimum willingness-to-pay (WTP) value when one debriefing type becomes more cost-effective than the other.MethodsThis study used previous data from a randomized controlled trial involving 50 anesthesiology residents in Canada. Each participant managed a pretest crisis scenario. Participants who were randomized to self-debrief used the video of their pretest scenario with no instructor present during their debriefing. Participants from the control group were debriefed by a trained instructor using the video of their pretest scenario. Participants individually managed a post-test simulated crisis scenario. We compared the cost and effectiveness of self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing using net benefit regression. The cost-effectiveness estimate was reported as the incremental net benefit and the uncertainty was presented using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.ResultsSelf-debriefing costs less than instructor debriefing. As the WTP increased, the probability that self-debriefing would be cost-effective decreased. With a WTP ≤Can200, the self-debriefing program was cost-effective. However, when effectiveness was priced higher than cost-savings and with a WTP >Can300, instructor debriefing was the preferred alternative.ConclusionWith a lower WTP (≤Can$200), self-debriefing was cost-effective in CRM simulation training when compared to instructor debriefing. This study provides evidence regarding cost-effectiveness that will inform decision-makers and clinical educators in their decision-making process, and may help to optimize resource allocation in education

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of complex wound interventions reveals optimal treatments for specific wound types.

BackgroundComplex wounds present a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems, costing billions of dollars annually in North America alone. The prevalence of complex wounds is a significant patient and societal healthcare concern and cost-effective wound care management remains unclear. This article summarizes the cost-effectiveness of interventions for complex wound care through a systematic review of the evidence base.MethodsWe searched multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) for cost-effectiveness studies that examined adults treated for complex wounds. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data from full-text articles, and assessed methodological quality using the Drummond 10-item methodological quality tool. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported, or, if not reported, calculated and converted to United States Dollars for the year 2013.ResultsOverall, 59 cost-effectiveness analyses were included; 71% (42 out of 59) of the included studies scored 8 or more points on the Drummond 10-item checklist tool. Based on these, 22 interventions were found to be more effective and less costly (i.e., dominant) compared to the study comparators: 9 for diabetic ulcers, 8 for venous ulcers, 3 for pressure ulcers, 1 for mixed venous and venous/arterial ulcers, and 1 for mixed complex wound types.ConclusionsOur results can be used by decision-makers in maximizing the deployment of clinically effective and resource efficient wound care interventions. Our analysis also highlights specific treatments that are not cost-effective, thereby indicating areas of resource savings. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0288-5

Economic evaluation of smoking cessation in Ontario's regional cancer programs.

Quitting smoking after a diagnosis of cancer results in greater response to treatment and decreased risk of disease recurrence and second primary cancers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of two smoking cessation approaches: the current basic smoking cessation program consisting of screening for tobacco use, advice, and referral; and a best practice smoking cessation program that includes the current basic program with the addition of pharmacological therapy, counseling, and follow-up. A Markov model was constructed that followed 65-year-old smokers with cancer over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities and mortality estimates were obtained from the published literature. Costs were obtained from standard costing sources in Ontario and reports. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address parameter uncertainties. For smokers with cancer, the best practice smoking cessation program was more effective and more costly than the basic smoking cessation program. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the best practice smoking cessation program compared to the basic smoking cessation program was $3367 per QALY gained and$5050 per LY gained for males, and $2050 per QALY gained and$4100 per LY gained for females. Results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of mortality for former and current smokers, the probability of quitting smoking through participation in the program and smoking-attributable costs. The study results suggested that a best practice smoking cessation program could be a cost-effective option. These findings can support and guide implementation of smoking cessation programs

Impact of smoking on health system costs among cancer patients in a retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada

Objective Smoking is the main modifiable cancer risk factor. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of smoking on health system costs among newly diagnosed adult patients with cancer. Specifically, costs of patients with cancer who were current smokers were compared with those of non-smokers from a publicly funded health system perspective. Methods This population-based cohort study of patients with cancer used administrative databases to identify smokers and non-smokers (1 April 2014-31 March 2016) and their healthcare costs in the 12-24 months following a cancer diagnosis. The health services included were hospitalisations, emergency room visits, drugs, home care services and physician services (from the time of diagnosis onwards). The difference in cost (ie, incremental cost) between patients with cancer who were smokers and those who were non-smokers was estimated using a generalised linear model (with log link and gamma distribution), and adjusted for age, sex, neighbourhood income, rurality, cancer site, cancer stage, geographical region and comorbidities. Results This study identified 3606 smokers and 14 911 non-smokers. Smokers were significantly younger (61 vs 65 years), more likely to be male (53%), lived in poorer neighbourhoods, had more advanced cancer stage,and were more likely to die within 1 year of diagnosis, compared with non-smokers. The regression model revealed that, on average, smokers had significantly higher monthly healthcare costs ($5091) than non-smokers ($4847), p<0.05. Conclusions Smoking status has a significant impact on healthcare costs among patients with cancer. On average, smokers incurred higher healthcare costs than non-smokers. These findings provide a further rationale for efforts to introduce evidence-based smoking cessation programmes as a standard of care for patients with cancer as they have the potential not only to improve patients' outcomes but also to reduce the economic burden of smoking on the healthcare system

What is the value of explicit priority setting for health interventions? A simulation study

Many countries seek to secure efficiency in health spending through establishing explicit priority setting institutions (PSIs). Since such institutions divert resources from frontline services which benefit patients directly, it is legitimate and reasonable to ask whether they are worth the money. We address this question by comparing, through simulation, the health benefits and costs from implementing a cost-effectiveness-threshold based funding decision rule compared to a number of baseline comparator funding rules. We present indicative results for two datasets from the United Kingdom (published in 2015) and Malawi (published in 2018), which show that the threshold rule reliably resulted in decreased health system costs, improved health benefits, or both. Our model is implemented in Microsoft Excel and designed to be user-friendly, and both the model and a user guide are made publicly available, in order to enable others to parameterise the model based on the local setting. Although inevitably stylised, we believe that our modelling and results offer a valid perspective on the added value of explicit PSIs

Advantages of the net benefit regression framework for trial-based economic evaluations of cancer treatments: an example from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 trial.

BackgroundEconomic evaluations commonly accompany trials of new treatments or interventions; however, regression methods and their corresponding advantages for the analysis of cost-effectiveness data are not widely appreciated.MethodsTo illustrate regression-based economic evaluation, we review a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group's Committee on Economic Analysis and implement net benefit regression.ResultsNet benefit regression offers a simple option for cost-effectiveness analyses of person-level data. By placing economic evaluation in a regression framework, regression-based techniques can facilitate the analysis and provide simple solutions to commonly encountered challenges (e.g., the need to adjust for potential confounders, identify key patient subgroups, and/or summarize "challenging" findings, like when a more effective regimen has the potential to be cost-saving).ConclusionsEconomic evaluations of patient-level data (e.g., from a clinical trial) can use net benefit regression to facilitate analysis and enhance results

Disease Control Priorities Third Edition: Time to Put a Theory of Change Into Practice Comment on “Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy”

Abstract The Disease Control Priorities program (DCP) has pioneered the use of economic evidence in health. The theory of change (ToC) put forward by Norheim is a further welcome and necessary step towards translating DCP evidence into better priority setting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We also agree that institutionalising evidence for informed priority-setting processes is crucial. Unfortunately, there have been missed opportunities for the DCP program to challenge ill-judged global norms about opportunity costs and too little respect has been shown for the wider set of local circumstances that may enable, or disable, the productive application of the DCP evidence base. We suggest that the best way forward for the global health community is a new platform that integrates the many existing development initiatives and that is driven by countries’ asks