Search

Background: Governments have identified innovation in pharmaceuticals and medical technology as a priority for health policy. Although the contribution of medical care to health has been studied extensively in clinical settings, much less is known about its contribution to population health. We examine how innovations in the management of four circulatory disorders have influenced trends in cause-specific mortality at the population level., Methods: Based on literature reviews, we selected six medical innovations with proven effectiveness against hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, heart failure and cerebrovascular disease. We combined data on the timing of these innovations and cause-specific mortality trends (1970-2005) from seven European countries. We sought to identify associations between the introduction of innovations and favourable changes in mortality, using Joinpoint-models based on linear spline regression., Results: For both ischaemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease, the timing of medical innovations was associated with improved mortality in four out of five countries and five out of seven countries, respectively, depending on the innovation. This suggests that innovation has impacted positively on mortality at the population level. For hypertension and heart failure, such associations could not be identified., Conclusion: Although improvements in cause-specific mortality coincide with the introduction of some innovations, this is not invariably true. This is likely to reflect the incremental effects of many interventions, the time taken for them to be adopted fully and the presence of contemporaneous changes in disease incidence. Research on the impact of medical innovations on population health is limited by unreliable data on their introduction.

Objectives: There is a renewed interest in health system indicators. In 1976 a measure of quality of healthcare, amenable mortality, was introduced by Rutstein. This indicator is based on the concept that deaths from certain causes should not occur in the presence of timely and effective healthcare. In the project "Amenable mortality in the European Union: toward better indicators for the effectiveness of health systems" (AMIEHS), we introduce a new approach to the selection of indicators of amenable mortality., Methods: Based on predefined selection criteria and a broad review of the literature on the effectiveness of medical interventions, a first set of potential indicators of amenable mortality (causes of death) was selected. The timing of the introduction of medical innovations was established through reviews and questionnaires sent to national experts from seven participating European countries. The preselected indicators were then validated by a trend analysis that identified associations between the timing of innovations and cause-specific mortality trends and by a Delphi-procedure., Results: After a short review of previous lists of amenable mortality indicators and a detailed description of the innovative procedure in the AMIEHS project we present a list of 14 causes of death that passed our selection criteria. We illustrate our empirical validation of these indicators using the examples of peptic ulcer and renal failure., Conclusions: The innovation developed in the AMIEHS study is a rigorous new approach to the concept of amenable mortality that includes empirical validation. Only validated indicators can be successfully used to assess the quality of healthcare systems in international comparisons., (Copyright © 2012 SESPAS. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Background and Study Aims: There is widespread consensus on the need for better indicators of the effectiveness of healthcare. We carried out an analysis of the validity of amenable mortality as an indicator of the effectiveness of healthcare, focusing on the potential use in routine surveillance systems of between-country variations in rates of mortality. We assessed whether the introduction of specific healthcare innovations coincided with declines in mortality from potentially amenable causes in seven European countries. In this paper, we summarise the main results of this study and illustrate them for four conditions., Data and Methods: We identified 14 conditions for which considerable declines in mortality have been observed and for which there is reasonable evidence in the literature of the effectiveness of healthcare interventions to lower mortality. We determined the time at which these interventions were introduced and assessed whether the innovations coincided with favourable changes in the mortality trends from these conditions, measured using Poisson linear spline regression. All the evidence was then presented to a Delphi panel., Main Results: The timing of innovation and favourable change in mortality trends coincided for only a few conditions. Other reasons for mortality decline are likely to include diffusion and improved quality of interventions and in incidence of diseases and their risk factors, but there is insufficient evidence to differentiate these at present. For most conditions, a Delphi panel could not reach consensus on the role of current mortality levels as measures of effectiveness of healthcare., Discussion and Conclusions: Improvements in healthcare probably lowered mortality from many of the conditions that we studied but occurred in a much more diffuse way than we assumed in the study design. Quantification of the contribution of healthcare to mortality requires adequate data on timing of innovation and trends in diffusion and quality and in incidence of disease, none of which are currently available. Given these gaps in knowledge, between-country differences in levels of mortality from amenable conditions should not be used for routine surveillance of healthcare performance. The timing and pace of mortality decline from amenable conditions may provide better indicators of healthcare performance.

Background: Previous studies have reported large socioeconomic inequalities in mortality from conditions amenable to medical intervention, but it is unclear whether these can be attributed to inequalities in access or quality of health care, or to confounding influences such as inequalities in background risk of diseases. We therefore studied whether inequalities in mortality from conditions amenable to medical intervention vary between countries in patterns which differ from those observed for other (non-amenable) causes of death. More specifically, we hypothesized that, as compared to non-amenable causes, inequalities in mortality from amenable causes are more strongly associated with inequalities in health care use and less strongly with inequalities in common risk factors for disease such as smoking., Methods: Cause-specific mortality data for people aged 30-74 years were obtained for 14 countries, and were analysed by calculating age-standardized mortality rates and relative risks comparing a lower with a higher educational group. Survey data on health care use and behavioural risk factors for people aged 30-74 years were obtained for 12 countries, and were analysed by calculating age-and sex-adjusted odds ratios comparing a low with a higher educational group. Patterns of association were explored by calculating correlation coefficients., Results: In most countries and for most amenable causes of death substantial inequalities in mortality were observed, but inequalities in mortality from amenable causes did not vary between countries in patterns that are different from those seen for inequalities in non-amenable mortality. As compared to non-amenable causes, inequalities in mortality from amenable causes are not more strongly associated with inequalities in health care use. Inequalities in mortality from amenable causes are also not less strongly associated with common risk factors such as smoking., Conclusions: We did not find evidence that inequalities in mortality from amenable conditions are related to inequalities in access or quality of health care. Further research is needed to find the causes of socio-economic inequalities in mortality from amenable conditions, and caution should be exercised in interpreting these inequalities as indicating health care deficiencies.

Rationale, aims and objectives Differences in the performance of medical care may be due to variation in the introduction and diffusion of medical innovations. The objective of this paper is to compare seven European countries ( United Kingdom, the Netherlands, West Germany, France, Spain, Estonia and Sweden) with regard to the year of introduction of six specific pharmaceutical innovations (antiretroviral drugs, cimetidine, tamoxifen, cisplatin, oxalaplatin and cyclosporin) that may have had important population health impacts. Methods We collected information on introduction and further diffusion of drugs using searches in the national and international literature, and questionnaires to national informants. We combined various sources of information, both official years of registration and other indicators of introduction (clinical trials, guidelines, evaluation reports, sales statistics). Results and conclusions The total length of the period between first and last introduction varied between 8 years for antiretroviral drugs and 22 years for cisplatin. Introduction in Estonia was generally delayed until the 1990s. The average time lags were smallest in France (2.2 years), United Kingdom (2.8 years) and the Netherlands (3.5 years). Similar rank orders were seen for year of registration suggesting that introduction lags are not only explained by differences in the process of registration. We discuss possible reasons for these between-country differences and implications for the evaluation of medical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]