-
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Jan 2022Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic... (Review)
Review
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Topics: Checklist; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Economics, Medical; Humans; Publishing; Research Design
PubMed: 35031096
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1351 -
Calcified Tissue International Mar 2019A guidance on the assessment and treatment of postmenopausal women at risk from fractures due to osteoporosis was recently published in Osteoporosis International as a... (Review)
Review
A guidance on the assessment and treatment of postmenopausal women at risk from fractures due to osteoporosis was recently published in Osteoporosis International as a joint effort of the International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (Kanis et al. in Osteoporos Int https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4704-5 , 2018). This manuscript updates the previous guidelines document, published in 2013 (Kanis et al. in Osteoporos Int 24:23-57, 2013) and is written in a European perspective. The present article reports and summarizes the main recommendations included in this 2018 guidance document.
Topics: Aged; Algorithms; Bone Density; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diet; Economics, Medical; Europe; Female; Humans; Life Style; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporotic Fractures; Postmenopause; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Risk; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Societies, Medical
PubMed: 30796490
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-018-00512-x -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Sep 2021
Topics: Decision Making; Economics, Medical; Humans; Terminal Care
PubMed: 33685946
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002388 -
European Heart Journal Sep 2015Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a common genetic cause of premature coronary heart disease (CHD). Globally, one baby is born with FH every minute. If diagnosed... (Review)
Review
Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a common genetic cause of premature coronary heart disease (CHD). Globally, one baby is born with FH every minute. If diagnosed and treated early in childhood, individuals with FH can have normal life expectancy. This consensus paper aims to improve awareness of the need for early detection and management of FH children. Familial hypercholesterolaemia is diagnosed either on phenotypic criteria, i.e. an elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level plus a family history of elevated LDL-C, premature coronary artery disease and/or genetic diagnosis, or positive genetic testing. Childhood is the optimal period for discrimination between FH and non-FH using LDL-C screening. An LDL-C ≥5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), or an LDL-C ≥4 mmol/L (160 mg/dL) with family history of premature CHD and/or high baseline cholesterol in one parent, make the phenotypic diagnosis. If a parent has a genetic defect, the LDL-C cut-off for the child is ≥3.5 mmol/L (130 mg/dL). We recommend cascade screening of families using a combined phenotypic and genotypic strategy. In children, testing is recommended from age 5 years, or earlier if homozygous FH is suspected. A healthy lifestyle and statin treatment (from age 8 to 10 years) are the cornerstones of management of heterozygous FH. Target LDL-C is <3.5 mmol/L (130 mg/dL) if >10 years, or ideally 50% reduction from baseline if 8-10 years, especially with very high LDL-C, elevated lipoprotein(a), a family history of premature CHD or other cardiovascular risk factors, balanced against the long-term risk of treatment side effects. Identifying FH early and optimally lowering LDL-C over the lifespan reduces cumulative LDL-C burden and offers health and socioeconomic benefits. To drive policy change for timely detection and management, we call for further studies in the young. Increased awareness, early identification, and optimal treatment from childhood are critical to adding decades of healthy life for children and adolescents with FH.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Atherosclerosis; Carotid Intima-Media Thickness; Child; Clinical Laboratory Techniques; Cost of Illness; Counseling; Diet; Dietary Supplements; Early Diagnosis; Economics, Medical; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Genetic Testing; Heterozygote; Homozygote; Humans; Hyperlipoproteinemia Type II; Life Expectancy; Medication Adherence; Middle Aged; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Risk Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 26009596
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv157 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Jan 2022Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic...
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Checklist; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Economics, Medical; Female; Humans; Peer Review; Research Personnel; Stakeholder Participation
PubMed: 35031088
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008 -
Przeglad Gastroenterologiczny 2016Variables influencing total direct medical costs in inflammatory bowel diseases include country, diagnosis (generally, patients with Crohn's disease generated higher... (Review)
Review
Variables influencing total direct medical costs in inflammatory bowel diseases include country, diagnosis (generally, patients with Crohn's disease generated higher costs compared with patients with ulcerative colitis), and year since diagnosis. In all studies the mean costs were higher than the median costs, which indicates that a relatively small group of the most severely ill patients significantly affect the total cost of treatment of these diseases. A major component of direct medical costs was attributed to hospitalisation, ranging from 49% to 80% of the total. The costs of surgery constituted 40-61% of inpatient costs. Indirect costs in inflammatory bowel diseases, unappreciated and often underestimated (considered by few authors and as a loss of work), are in fact important and may even exceed direct medical costs.
PubMed: 27110304
DOI: 10.5114/pg.2016.57883 -
Praxis 2020
Topics: Economics, Medical; Medicine
PubMed: 32126923
DOI: 10.1024/1661-8157/a003434 -
Health Economics Sep 2015
Topics: Congresses as Topic; Economics, Medical; Humans; Models, Econometric
PubMed: 25899619
DOI: 10.1002/hec.3180 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... May 2022
Topics: COVID-19; Economics, Medical; Forecasting; Humans; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35393253
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.03.008 -
African Health Sciences Mar 2016The purpose of this paper is to discuss the role of rationing in medical education. Medical education is expensive and there is a limit to that which governments,...
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the role of rationing in medical education. Medical education is expensive and there is a limit to that which governments, funders or individuals can spend on it. Rationing involves the allocation of resources that are limited. This paper discussed the pros and cons of the application of rationing to medical education and the different forms of rationing that could be applied. Even though some stakeholders in medical education might be taken aback at the prospect of rationing, the truth is that rationing has always occurred in one form or another in medical education and in healthcare more broadly. Different types of rationing exist in healthcare professional education. For example rationing may be implicit or explicit or may be based on macro-allocation or micro-allocation decisions. Funding can be distributed equally among learners, or according to the needs of individual learners, or to ensure that overall usefulness is maximised. One final option is to allow the market to operate freely and to decide in that way. These principles of rationing can apply to individual learners or to institutions or departments or learning modes. Rationing is occurring in medical education, even though it might be implicit. It is worth giving consideration to methods of rationing and to make thinking about rationing more explicit.
Topics: Education, Medical; Health Care Rationing; Humans
PubMed: 27358649
DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v16i1.43