Search

Background: Total laryngectomy with or without adjuvant (chemo)radiation often induces speech, swallowing and neck and shoulder problems. Speech, swallowing and shoulder exercises may prevent or diminish these problems. The aim of the present paper is to describe the study, which is designed to investigate the effectiveness and cost-utility of a guided self-help exercise program built into the application "In Tune without Cords" among patients treated with total laryngectomy.Methods/design: Patients, up to 5 years earlier treated with total laryngectomy with or without (chemo)radiation will be recruited for participation in this study. Patients willing to participate will be randomized to the intervention or control group (1:1). Patients in the intervention group will be provided access to a guided self-help exercise program and a self-care education program built into the application "In Tune without Cords". Patients in the control group will only be provided access to the self-care education program. The primary outcome is the difference in swallowing quality (SWAL-QOL) between the intervention and control group. Secondary outcome measures address speech problems (SHI), shoulder disability (SDQ), quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-H&N35 and EQ-5D), direct and indirect costs (adjusted iMCQ and iPCQ measures) and self-management (PAM). Patients will be asked to complete these outcome measures at baseline, immediately after the intervention or control period (i.e. at 3 months follow-up) and at 6 months follow-up.Discussion: This randomized controlled trial will provide knowledge on the effectiveness of a guided self-help exercise program for patients treated with total laryngectomy. In addition, information on the value for money of such an exercise program will be provided. If this guided self-help program is (cost)effective for patients treated with total laryngectomy, the next step will be to implement this exercise program in current clinical practice.Trial Registration: NTR5255 Protocol version 4 date September 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The present study protocol describes the evaluation of a comprehensive integrated care model implemented at two hospital sites at the University Hospital of North Norway (UNN). The PAtient Centred Team (PACT) model includes proactive, patient-centred interdisciplinary teams that aim to improve the continuum and quality of care of frail elderly patients and reduce health care costs. The main objectives of the evaluation are to analyse the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of using patient-centred teams as part of routine service provision for this patient group. The evaluation will analyse the effect on patient health and functional status, patient experiences and hospital utilisation, and it will conduct an economic evaluation. This paper describes the PACT model and the rationale for and design of the planned effectiveness and cost-effectiveness study.Methods/design: This is a prospective, non-randomised matched control before-and-after intervention study. Patients in the intervention group will be recruited from the hospital sites that have implemented the PACT model. The controls will be recruited from two hospitals without the model. The control patients and the index patients will be matched according to sex, age and number of long-term conditions. The study aims to include 600 patients in each group, which will provide sufficient power to detect a clinical change in the primary outcome. The primary outcome is the physical dimension of the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Secondary outcomes are the Patient Generated Index (PGI), the Patient Activation Measure (PAM), the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC), hospitalisation and length of stay. The cost-effectiveness study takes a health provider perspective and calculates the cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The data will be collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The data will be analysed using techniques and models that recognise the lack of randomisation and the correlation of cost and effect data.Discussion: The study results will provide knowledge about whether the integrated care model implemented at UNN improves the quality of care for the frail elderly with multiple conditions. The study will establish whether the PAC. T model improves health and functional status and is cost effective compared to the usual care for this patient group.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02541474. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stroke is a leading cause of disability and distress, and often profoundly affects the quality of life of stroke survivors and their carers. With the support of carers, many stroke survivors are returning to live in the community despite the presence of disability and ongoing challenges. The sudden and catastrophic changes caused by stroke affects the mental, emotional and social health of both stroke survivors and carers. The aim of this study is to evaluate a Stroke and Carer Optimal Health Program (SCOHP) that adopts a person-centred approach and engages collaborative therapy to educate, support and improve the psychosocial health of stroke survivors and their carers.Methods: This study is a prospective randomised controlled trial. It will include a total of 168 stroke survivors and carers randomly allocated into an intervention group (SCOHP) or a control group (usual care). Participants randomised to the intervention group will receive nine (8 + 1 booster) sessions guided by a structured workbook. The primary outcome measures for stroke survivors and carers will be health-related quality of life (AQoL-6D and EQ-5D) and self-efficacy (GSE). Secondary outcome measures will include: anxiety and depression (HADS); coping (Brief COPE); work and social adjustment (WSAS); carer strain (MCSI); carer satisfaction (CASI); and treatment evaluation (TEI-SF and CEQ). Process evaluation and a health economic cost analysis will also be conducted.Discussion: We believe that this is an innovative intervention that engages the stroke survivor and carer and will be significant in improving the psychosocial health, increasing independence and reducing treatment-related costs in this vulnerable patient-carer dyad. In addition, we expect that the intervention will assist carers and stroke survivors to negotiate the complexity of health services across the trajectory of care and provide practical skills to improve self-management.Trial Registration: ACTRN12615001046594 . Registered on 7 October 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective management of patients using warfarin is resource-intensive, requiring frequent in-clinic testing of the international normalized ratio (INR). Patient self-testing (PST) using portable at-home INR monitoring devices has emerged as a convenient alternative. As revealed by The Home INR Study (THINRS), event rates for PST were not significantly different from those for in-clinic high-quality anticoagulation management (HQACM), and a cumulative gain in quality of life was observed for patients undergoing PST.Objective: To perform a cost-utility analysis of weekly PST versus monthly HQACM and to examine the sensitivity of these results to testing frequency.Patients/interventions: In this study, 2922 patients taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valve, and who demonstrated PST competence, were randomized to either weekly PST (n = 1465) or monthly in-clinic testing (n = 1457). In a sub-study, 234 additional patients were randomized to PST once every 4 weeks (n = 116) or PST twice weekly (n = 118). The endpoints were quality of life (measured by the Health Utilities Index), health care utilization, and costs over 2 years of follow-up.Results: PST and HQACM participants were similar with regard to gender, age, and CHADS2 score. The total cost per patient over 2 years of follow-up was $32,484 for HQACM and $33,460 for weekly PST, representing a difference of $976. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with PST once weekly was $5566 (95 % CI, -$11,490 to $25,142). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was sensitive to testing frequency: weekly PST dominated PST twice weekly and once every 4 weeks. Compared to HQACM, weekly PST was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in quality of life. The ICER for weekly PST versus HQACM was well within accepted standards for cost-effectiveness, and was preferred over more or less frequent PST. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses of key assumptions.Conclusion: Weekly PST is a cost-effective alternative to monthly HQACM and a preferred testing frequency compared to twice weekly or monthly PST. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Subacromial impingement syndrome is the most frequent cause of shoulder problems which themselves affect 1 in 3 adults. Management commonly includes exercise and corticosteroid injection. However, the few existing trials of exercise or corticosteroid injection for subacromial impingement syndrome are mostly small, of poor quality, and focus only on short-term results. Exercise packages tend to be standardised rather than individualised and progressed. There has been much recent interest in improving outcome from corticosteroid injections by using musculoskeletal ultrasound to guide injections. However, there are no high-quality trials comparing ultrasound-guided and blind corticosteroid injection in subacromial impingement syndrome. This trial will investigate how to optimise the outcome of subacromial impingement syndrome from exercise (standardised advice and information leaflet versus physiotherapist-led exercise) and from subacromial corticosteroid injection (blind versus ultrasound-guided), and provide long-term follow-up data on clinical and cost-effectiveness.Methods/design: The study design is a 2x2 factorial randomised controlled trial. 252 adults with subacromial impingement syndrome will be recruited from two musculoskeletal Clinical Assessment and Treatment Services at the primary-secondary care interface in Staffordshire, UK. Participants will be randomised on a 1:1:1:1 basis to one of four treatment groups: (1) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection and a physiotherapist-led exercise programme, (2) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection and an advice and exercise leaflet, (3) blind subacromial corticosteroid injection and a physiotherapist-led exercise programme, or (4) blind subacromial corticosteroid injection and an advice and exercise leaflet. The primary intention-to-treat analysis will be the mean differences in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores at 6 weeks for the comparison between injection interventions and at 6 months for the comparison between exercise interventions. Although independence of treatment effects is assumed, the magnitude of any interaction effect will be examined (but is not intended for the main analyses). Secondary outcomes will include comparison of long-term outcomes (12 months) and cost-effectiveness. A secondary per protocol analysis will also be performed.Discussion: This protocol paper presents detail of the rationale, design, methods and operational aspects of the SUPPORT trial.Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN42399123. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery and refractive error/presbyopia correction in Zambia. Methods Primary data on costs and health related quality of life were collected in a prospective cohort study of 170 cataract and 113 refractive error/presbyopia patients recruited from three health facilities. Six months later, follow-up data were available from 77 and 41 patients who had received cataract surgery and spectacles, respectively. Costs were determined from patient interviews and micro-costing at the three health facilities. Utility values were gathered by administering the EQ-5D quality of life instrument immediately before and six months after cataract surgery or acquiring spectacles. A probabilistic state-transition model was used to generate cost-effectiveness estimates with uncertainty ranges. Results Utility values significantly improved across the patient sample after cataract surgery and acquiring spectacles. Incremental costs per Quality Adjusted Life Years gained were US$ 259 for cataract surgery and US$ 375 for refractive error correction. The probabilities of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios being below the Zambian gross national income per capita were 95% for both cataract surgery and refractive error correction. Conclusion In spite of proven cost-effectiveness, severe health system constraints are likely to hamper scaling up of the interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Complex clinical interventions are increasingly subject to evaluation by randomised trial linked to economic evaluation. However evaluations of policy initiatives tend to eschew experimental designs in favour of interpretative perspectives which rarely allow the economic evaluation methods used in clinical trials. As evidence of the cost effectiveness of such initiatives is critical in informing policy, it is important to explore whether conventional economic evaluation methods apply to experimental evaluations of policy initiatives. Methods We used mixed methods based on a quasi-experimental design to evaluate a policy initiative whose aim was to expedite the modernisation of gastroenterology endoscopy services in England. We compared 10 sites which had received funding and support to modernise their endoscopy services with 10 controls. We collected data from five waves of patients undergoing endoscopy. The economic component of the study compared sites by levels of investment in modernisation and patients' use of health service resources, time off work and health related quality of life. Results We found no statistically significant difference between intervention and control sites in investment in modernisation or any patient outcome including health. Conclusions This study highlights difficulties in applying the rigour of a randomised trial and associated technique of economic evaluation to a policy initiative. It nevertheless demonstrates the feasibility of using this approach although further work is needed to demonstrate its generalisability in other applications. The present application shows that the small incentives offered to intervention sites did not enhance modernisation of gastroenterology endoscopy services or improve patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]