Search

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global public health problem and a leading cause of mortality, morbidity, and disability. The increasing incidence combined with the heterogeneity and complexity of TBI will inevitably place a substantial burden on health systems. These findings emphasize the importance of obtaining accurate and timely insights into healthcare consumption and costs on a multi-national scale. This study aimed to describe intramural healthcare consumption and costs across the full spectrum of TBI in Europe. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) core study is a prospective observational study conducted in 18 countries across Europe and in Israel. The baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was used to differentiate patients by brain injury severity in mild (GCS 13–15), moderate (GCS 9–12), or severe (GCS £8) TBI. We analyzed seven main cost categories: pre-hospital care, hospital admission, surgical interventions, imaging, laboratory, blood products, and rehabilitation. Costs were estimated based on Dutch reference prices and converted to country-specific unit prices using gross domestic product (GDP)-purchasing power parity (PPP) adjustment. Mixed linear regression was used to identify between-country differences in length of stay (LOS), as a parameter of healthcare consumption. Mixed generalized linear models with gamma distribution and log link function quantified associations of patient characteristics with higher total costs. We included 4349 patients, of whom 2854 (66%) had mild, 371 (9%) had moderate, and 962 (22%) had severe TBI. Hospitalization accounted for the largest part of the intramural consumption and costs (60%). In the total study population, the mean LOS was 5.1 days at the intensive care unit (ICU) and 6.3 days at the ward. For mild, moderate, and severe TBI, mean LOS was, respectively, 1.8, 8.9, and 13.5 days at the ICU and 4.5, 10.1, and 10.3 days at the ward. Other large

Background Healthcare services worldwide are transforming themselves into value-based organizations. Integrated care is an important aspect of value-based healthcare (VBHC), but practical evidence-based recommendations for the successful implementation of integrated care within a VBHC context are lacking. This systematic review aims to identify how value-based integrated care (VBIC) is defined in literature, and to summarize the literature regarding the effects of VBIC, and the facilitators and barriers for its implementation. Methods Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core Collection and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails databases were searched from inception until January 2022. Empirical studies that implemented and evaluated an integrated care intervention within a VBHC context were included. Non-empirical studies were included if they described either a definition of VBIC or facilitators and barriers for its implementation. The Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC) was used to analyse the VBIC interventions. The quality of the articles was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results After screening 1328 titles/abstract and 485 full-text articles, 24 articles were included. No articles were excluded based on quality. One article provided a definition of VBIC. Eleven studies reported -mostly positive-effects of VBIC, on clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and healthcare utilization. Nineteen studies reported facilitators and barriers for the implementation of VBIC; factors related to reimbursement and IT infrastructure were reported most frequently. Conclusion The concept of VBIC is not well defined. The effect of VBIC seems promising, but the exact interpretation of effect evaluations is challenged by the precedence of multicomponent interventions, multiple testing and generalizability issues. For successful implementation of VBIC, it is imperative that healthcare organizations consider investing i

Missing data are frequently encountered in registries that are used to compare performance across hospitals. The most appropriate method for handling missing data when analysing differences in outcomes between hospitals with a generalised linear mixed model is unclear. We aimed to compare methods for handling missing data when comparing hospitals on ordinal and dichotomous outcomes. We performed a simulation study using data from the Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischaemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN) Registry, a prospective cohort study in 17 hospitals performing endovascular therapy for ischaemic stroke in the Netherlands. The investigated methods for handling missing data, both case-mix adjustment variables and outcomes, were complete case analysis, single imputation, multiple imputation, single imputation with deletion of imputed outcomes and multiple imputation with deletion of imputed outcomes. Data were generated as missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random and missing not at random (MNAR) in three scenarios: (1) 10% missing data in case-mix and outcome; (2) 40% missing data in case-mix and outcome; and (3) 40% missing data in case-mix and outcome with varying degree of missing data among hospitals. Bias and reliability of the methods were compared on the mean squared error (MSE, a summary measure combining bias and reliability) relative to the hospital effect estimates from the complete reference data set. For both the ordinal outcome (ie, the modified Rankin Scale) and a common dichotomised version thereof, all methods of handling missing data were biased, likely due to shrinkage of the random effects. The MSE of all methods was on average lowest under MCAR and with fewer missing data, and highest with more missing data and under MNAR. The 'multiple imputation, then deletion' method had the lowest MSE for both outcomes under all simulated patterns of missing data. Thus, when estimating hospi

It is with great interest that we read the report of Yoshida et al on the effect of second-generation narrow band imaging compared to white light imaging on detecting early gastric cancer in high-risk patients. The trial was expertly designed with a large patient population and, although superiority of narrow band imaging could not be proven, has important implications for further research on this topic. However, a significant issue concerning the analyses attracted our interest and we would like to comment on it. [...]

Background: Identifying branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs) at lowest risk of progression may allow for a reduced intensity of surveillance. Objective: We aimed to externally validate the previously developed Dutch-American Risk stratification Tool (DART-1; https://rtools.mayo.edu/DART/), which identifies cysts at low risk of developing worrisome features (WFs) or high-risk stigmata (HRS). Methods: Three prospective cohorts of individuals under surveillance for BD-IPMNs were combined, independent from the original development cohort. We assessed the performance (discrimination and calibration) of DART-1, a multivariable Cox-proportional logistic regression model with five predictors for the development of WFs or HRS. Results: Of 832 individuals (mean age 77 years, SD 11.5) under surveillance for a median of 40 months (IQR 44), 163 (20%) developed WFs or HRS. DART-1's discriminative ability (C-statistic 0.68) was similar to that in the development cohort (0.64–0.72) and showed moderate calibration. DART-1 adequately estimated the risk for patients in the middle risk quintile, and slightly underestimated it in the lowest quintiles. Their range of predicted versus observed 3-year risk was 0%–0% versus 0%–3.7% for Q1; 0.3%–0.4% versus 3%–11% for Q2; and 2.6%–3% versus 2.4%–9.8% for Q3. The development of WFs or HRS was associated with pancreatic cancer (p < 0.001). Vice versa, in absence of WFs or HRS, the risk of malignancy was low (0.3%). Conclusions: The performance of DART-1 to predict the development of WFs or HRS in BD-IPMN was validated in an external international cohort, with a discriminative ability equal as in the development cohort. Risk estimations were most accurate for patients with BD-IPMNs in the middle risk quintile and slightly underestimated in the lowest quintiles.

Survival rates of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are inferior to those of pediatric ALL patients. In part, this may be caused by differences in treatment setting. Generally, children are treated in specialized pediatric hemato-oncology settings, whereas AYAs are treated in adult hemato-oncology settings. Since 2005, adult treatment protocols have included pediatric-inspired chemotherapy, which has been the standard of care for AYAs from 2008 onwards. This study aims to assess whether, despite protocols in both settings having become more similar, there remains an effect of treatment in specialized pediatric hemato-oncology settings on 5-year survival for ALL patients in the Netherlands. We used nationwide registry data (2004–2013) on 472 ALL patients aged between 10 and 30 years old. A fuzzy regression discontinuity design was applied to estimate the treatment effect using two-stage least squares regression with the treatment threshold at 17 years and 7 months of age, adjusting for sex, age at diagnosis, and immunophenotype. We found a risk difference of 0.419 (p = 0.092; 95% CI = −0.0686; 0.907), meaning a 41.9 percentage point greater probability of surviving five years after diagnosis for ALL patients treated in specialized pediatric hemato-oncology settings. Our results suggest that ALL patients around the threshold could benefit from increased collaboration between pediatric and adult hemato-oncology in terms of survival.

Introduction Biologics are effective for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, unwarranted variation in processes and outcomes has been reported in the treatment of IBD. A care pathway for the treatment of IBD has the potential to reduce practice variation and improve outcomes. This study aims to compare the effect of a uniform care pathway for the treatment of patients with IBD with biologics to the current situation. Methods and analysis IBD Value is a longitudinal multicentre non-randomised parallel cluster trial with a baseline period. The study takes place in eight centres in the Netherlands. The baseline period will run for 12 months, after which the care pathway will be implemented in 6 of the 8 participating hospitals during the implementation phase of 3 months. Hereafter, the effect of the care pathway will be assessed for 12 months. Total study period is 27 months. The primary outcome is the effect of the care pathway on disease control (IBD-Control questionnaire). Secondary outcomes are the effect of the care pathway on the other outcomes of the International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement IBD standard set, health-related generic quality of life, patient experiences and degree of variation; cost effectiveness of the care pathway; and the variation between hospitals in the aforementioned outcomes in the baseline period. Outcomes will be measured every 6 months. The study started on 1 December 2020 and a minimum of 200 patients will be included. Ethics and dissemination The study was deemed not to be subject to Dutch law (WMO; Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act) by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus MC, the Netherlands (registration number: MEC-2020-075) and a waiver was provided. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented at (inter)national conferences. Trial registration number NL8276.