Search

Background: Autism is a lifelong complex neurodevelopmental condition that affects brain development and behaviour with significant consequences for everyday life. Despite its personal, familial, and societal impact, Europe-wide harmonised guidelines are still lacking for early detection, diagnosis, and intervention, leading to an overall unsatisfactory autistic person and carer journey., Methods: The care pathway for autistic children and adolescents was analysed in Italy, Spain and the UK from the perspective of carers (using a survey aimed at caregivers of autistic children 0-18 years old), the autistic community, and professionals in order to identify major barriers (treatment gaps) preventing carers from receiving information, support, and timely screening/diagnosis and intervention., Results: Across all three countries, analysis of the current care pathway showed: long waits from the time carers raised their first concerns about a child's development and/or behaviour until screening and confirmed diagnosis; delayed or no access to intervention once a diagnosis was confirmed; limited information about autism and how to access early detection services; and deficient support for families throughout the journey., Conclusions: These findings call for policy harmonisation in Europe to shorten long wait times for diagnosis and intervention and therefore, improve autistic people and their families' journey experience and quality of life.

Background: Health economic evaluations support health-care decision-making by providing information on the costs and consequences of health interventions. No universally accepted methodology exists for modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to close treatment gaps for headache disorders in countries of Europe (or elsewhere). Our aim here, within the European Brain Council's Value-of-Treatment project, was to develop headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache., Methods: We developed three headache-type-specific decision-analytical models using the WHO-CHOICE framework and adapted these for three European Region country settings (Luxembourg, Russia and Spain), diverse in geographical location, population size, income level and health-care systems and for which we had population-based data. Each model compared current (suboptimal) care vs target care (delivered in accordance with the structured headache services model). Epidemiological and economic data were drawn from studies conducted by the Global Campaign against Headache; data on efficacy of treatments were taken from published randomized controlled trials; assumptions on uptake of treatments, and those made for Healthy Life Year (HLY) calculations and target-care benefits, were agreed with experts. We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider (main analyses) and societal (secondary analyses) perspectives (2020 figures, euros)., Results: The analytical models were successfully developed and applied to each country setting. Headache-related costs (including use of health-care resources and lost productivity) and health outcomes (HLYs) were mapped across populations. The same calculations were repeated for each alternative (current vs target care). Analyses of the differences in costs and health outcomes between alternatives and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are presented elsewhere., Conclusions: This study presents the first headache-type-specific analytical models to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing structured headache services in countries in the European Region. The models are robust, and can assist policy makers in allocating health budgets between interventions to maximize the health of populations., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: There have been several calls for estimations of costs and consequences of headache interventions to inform European public-health policies. In a previous paper, in the absence of universally accepted methodology, we developed headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache. Here we apply this methodology and present the findings., Methods: Data sources were published evidence and expert opinions, including those from an earlier economic evaluation framework using the WHO-CHOICE model. We used three headache-type-specific analytical models, for migraine, tension-type-headache (TTH) and medication-overuse-headache (MOH). We considered three European Region case studies, from Luxembourg, Russia and Spain to include a range of health-care systems, comparing current (suboptimal) care versus target care (structured services implemented, with provider-training and consumer-education). We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider and societal perspectives (2020 figures, euros). We expressed effectiveness as healthy life years (HLYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness as incremental cost-effectiveness-ratios (ICERs; cost to be invested/HLY gained). We applied WHO thresholds for cost-effectiveness., Results: The models demonstrated increased effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness (migraine) or cost saving (TTH, MOH) from the provider perspective over one and 5 years and consistently across the health-care systems and settings. From the societal perspective, we found structured headache services would be economically successful, not only delivering increased effectiveness but also cost saving across headache types and over time. The predicted magnitude of cost saving correlated positively with country wage levels. Lost productivity had a major impact on these estimates, but sensitivity analyses showed the intervention remained cost-effective across all models when we assumed that remedying disability would recover only 20% of lost productivity., Conclusions: This is the first study to propose a health-care solution for headache, in the form of structured headache services, and evaluate it economically in multiple settings. Despite numerous challenges, we demonstrated that economic evaluation of headache services, in terms of outcomes and costs, is feasible as well as necessary. Furthermore, it is strongly supportive of the proposed intervention, while its framework is general enough to be easily adapted and implemented across Europe., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

This study systematically compares HTA recommendations on a number of disease-modifying therapies for patients with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. We analysed publicly available HTA reports for nine medicine-indication pairs across seven OECD countries using a methodological framework enabling systematic analysis of HTA recommendations. The analysis was conducted based on a number of value dimensions, including clinical and economic variables, as well as several other dimensions of value beyond cost-effectiveness. The material was qualitatively and quantitatively coded following the different stages of HTA decision-making process. Fifty-seven medicine-indication pairs were assessed across the study countries. Of those, eight medicine indication-pairs reported diverging HTA recommendations. Although HTA recommendations were based on the same evidence submitted in most cases, significant variations were identified in interpretation and acceptance of evidence resulting in different uncertainties raised and different ways of addressing them. Uncertainties arose both in terms of the clinical and the economic evidence, including the design of key trials or the data quality in economic models. Beyond costs and effects, additional dimensions of value had an impact in the direction of recommendations, however with different magnitude across countries. We show that there is heterogeneity across countries in HTA for evaluating DMTs for RRMS with a lack of standardised methods in evaluating clinical and economic evidence and the use of social value judgments to inform decision-making., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Health economics preference-based techniques, such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs), are often used to inform public health policy on patients' priorities when choosing health care. Although there is general evidence about patients' satisfaction with general-practice (GP) care in Europe, to our knowledge no comparisons are available that measure patients' preferences in different European countries, and use patients' priorities to propose policy changes., Methods: A DCE was designed and used to capture patients' preferences for GP care in Germany, England and Slovenia. In the three countries, 841 eligible patients were identified across nine GP practices. The DCE questions compared multiple health-care practices (including their 'current GP practice'), described by the following attributes: 'information' received from the GP, 'booking time', 'waiting time' in the GP practice, 'listened to', as well as being able to receive the 'best care' available for their condition. Results were compared across countries looking at the attributes' importance and rankings, patients' willingness-to-wait for unit changes to the attributes' levels and changes in policy., Results: A total of 692 respondents (75% response rate) returned questionnaires suitable for analysis. In England and Slovenia, patients were satisfied with their 'current practice', but they valued changes to alternative practices. All attributes influenced decision-making, and 'best care' or 'information' were more valued than others. In Germany, almost all respondents constantly preferred their 'current practice', and other factors did not change their preference., Conclusion: European patients have strong preference for their 'status quo', but alternative GP practices could compensate for it and offer more valued care., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.)