Search

Abstract: Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is becoming an increasingly popular tool in setting health service priorities. This paper presents a novel multi-attribute utility (MAU) approach to setting health service priorities using PBMA. This approach includes identifying the attributes of the MAU function; describing and scaling attributes; quantifying trade-offs between attributes; and combining single conditional utility functions into the MAU function. We illustrate the MAU approach using a PBMA case study in mental health services from the Community Health Sector in metropolitan South Australia. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Decision-makers are challenged to incorporate public input into priority-setting decisions. We conducted a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control to investigate the types of evidence, especially evidence supplied by the public, that are utilized in health care priority-setting. We further examined how normative attitudes and contextual factors influence the use of public engagement as evidence at the committee level. Administered between November and December 2012, 67 respondents from 117 invited individuals participated in the survey. The results indicated that public engagement was infrequently utilized compared to clinical effectiveness evidence or cost evidence. General positive agreement between normative attitudes towards the use of evidence and the frequency of evidence utilization was observed, but absence of correlative agreement was found for the types of evidence that are supplied by the general public and for cost-effectiveness inputs. Regression analyses suggested that public engagement was unevenly utilized between jurisdictions and that educational background and barriers to implementing public input may decrease the odds of using public engagement as evidence. We recommend that institutions establish a link between committee members' normative attitudes for using public engagement and its real-world utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has primarily been treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and predisone (CHOP) chemotherapy since the 1970s. Recently, the addition of rituximab to CHOP (CHOP-R) has been found to improve survival and trial-based results have suggested that it is a cost-effective alternative to CHOP. Objectives: The objective in this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CHOP-R relative to CHOP in first-line treatment of DLBCL in a population-based setting in British Columbia, Canada. Methods: We created a patient-level simulation model describing potential pathways for DLBCL patients initiating treatment with either CHOP or CHOP-R. Model parameters were populated with statistical analyses of individual-level treatment and effectiveness data and published cost estimates. All results were stratified by age at treatment initiation (<60 years vs. ≥60 years). The base-case scenario was based on a 15-year time horizon and a 3% discount rate. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. All costs are reported as 2006 $CDN. Results: For the base-case scenario, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for younger individuals ranged from $11,965 per disease-free life-year gained to $19,144 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. For older individuals, estimated ICERs for all health outcomes were below $10,000 per unit outcome gained for a 15-year time horizon. Conclusions: Using population-based data, CHOP-R was found to be a cost-effective alternative to CHOP, particularly for individuals aged 60 years and older. Results from this Canadian observational data source were consistent with international clinical trial-based studies. The use of CHOP-R as a first-line treatment for DLBCL is recommended, with respect to both clinical and cost-effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]