Search

Background The value equation of value-based healthcare (VBHC) as a single figure remains ambiguous, closer to a theoretical framework than a useful tool for decision making. The challenge lies in the way patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) might be combined to produce a single value of the numerator. This paper aims to estimate the weights of PCOs to provide a single figure in the numerator, which ultimately will allow a VBHC figure to be reached. Methods A cohort of patients diagnosed with breast cancer (n  = 690) with a 6-month follow-up recruited in 2019–20 across six European hospitals was used. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinical-related outcomes (CROs), and clinical and socio-demographic variables were collected. The numerator was defined as a composite indicator of the PCOs (CI-PCO), and regression analysis was applied to estimate their weights and consequently arrive at a single figure. Results Pain showed as the highest weight followed by physical functioning , emotional functioning , and ability to work , and then by a symptom, either arm or breast. PCOs weights were robust to sensitivity analysis. The CI-PCO value was found to be more informative than the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) value. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first research to combine the PCOs proposed by ICHOM to provide a single figure in the numerator of the value equation. This figure shows a step forward in VBHC to reach a holistic benchmarking across healthcare centres and a value-based payment. This research might also be applied in other medical conditions as a methodological pathway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is a conceptual framework to improve the value of healthcare by health, care-process and economic outcomes. Benchmarking should provide useful information to identify best practices and therefore a good instrument to improve quality across healthcare organizations. This paper aims to provide a proof-of-concept of the feasibility of an international VBHC benchmarking in breast cancer, with the ultimate aim of being used to share best practices with a data-driven approach among healthcare organizations from different health systems. Methods In the VOICE community—a European healthcare centre cluster intending to address VBHC from theory to practice—information on patient-reported, clinical-related, care-process-related and economic-related outcomes were collected. Patient archetypes were identified using clustering techniques and an indicator set following a modified Delphi was defined. Benchmarking was performed using regression models controlling for patient archetypes and socio-demographic characteristics. Results Six hundred and ninety patients from six healthcare centres were included. A set of 50 health, care-process and economic indicators was distilled for benchmarking. Statistically significant differences across sites have been found in most health outcomes, half of the care-process indicators, and all economic indicators, allowing for identifying the best and worst performers. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first international experience providing evidence to be used with VBHC benchmarking intention. Differences in indicators across healthcare centres should be used to identify best practices and improve healthcare quality following further research. Applied methods might help to move forward with VBHC benchmarking in other medical conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated changes in European healthcare systems, with a significant proportion of COVID-19 cases being managed on an outpatient basis in primary healthcare (PHC). To alleviate the burden on healthcare facilities, many European countries developed contact-tracing apps and symptom checkers to identify potential cases. As the pandemic evolved, the European Union introduced the Digital COVID-19 Certificate for travel, which relies on vaccination, recent recovery, or negative test results. However, the integration between these apps and PHC has not been thoroughly explored in Europe. Objective: To describe if governmental COVID-19 apps allowed COVID-19 patients to connect with PHC through their apps in Europe and to examine how the Digital COVID-19 Certificate was obtained. Methodology: Design and setting: Retrospective descriptive study in PHC in 30 European countries. An ad hoc, semi-structured questionnaire was developed to collect country-specific data on primary healthcare activity during the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of information technology tools to support medical care from 15 March 2020 to 31 August 2021. Key informants belong to the WONCA Europe network (World Organization of Family Doctors). The data were collected from relevant and reliable official sources, such as governmental websites and guidelines. Main outcome measures: Patient's first contact with health system, governmental COVID-19 app (name and function), Digital COVID-19 Certification, COVID-19 app connection with PHC. Results: Primary care was the first point of care for suspected COVID-19 patients in 28 countries, and 24 countries developed apps to complement classical medical care. The most frequently developed app was for tracing COVID-19 cases (24 countries), followed by the Digital COVID-19 Certificate app (17 countries). Bulgaria, Italy, Serbia, North Macedonia, and Romania had interoperability between PHC and COVID-19 apps, and Poland and Romania's apps considered social needs. Conclusions: COVID-19 apps were widely created during the first pandemic year. Contact tracing was the most frequent function found in the registered apps. Connection with PHC was scarcely developed. In future pandemics, connections between health system levels should be guaranteed to develop and implement effective strategies for managing diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Self-management interventions (SMIs) offer a promising approach to actively engage patients in the management of their chronic diseases. Within the scope of the COMPAR-EU project, our goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the utilisation and implementation of SMIs in the care of adult individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A multidisciplinary panel of experts, utilising a core outcome set (COS), identified critical outcomes and established effect thresholds for each outcome. The panel formulated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, a transparent and rigorous framework for developing and presenting the best available evidence for the formulation of recommendations. All recommendations are based on systematic reviews (SR) of the effects and of values and preferences, a contextual analysis, and a cost-effectiveness analysis. The COMPAR-EU panel is in favour of using SMIs rather than usual care (UC) alone (conditional, very low certainty of the evidence). Furthermore, the panel specifically is in favour of using ten selected SMIs, rather than UC alone (conditional, low certainty of the evidence), mostly encompassing education, self-monitoring, and behavioural techniques. The panel acknowledges that, for most SMIs, moderate resource requirements exist, and cost-effectiveness analyses do not distinctly favour either the SMI or UC. Additionally, it recognises that SMIs are likely to enhance equity, deeming them acceptable and feasible for implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]