Dataset Information

Accessibility, clinical effectiveness, and practice costs of providing a telephone option for routine asthma reviews: phase IV controlled implementation study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Attendance for routine asthma reviews is poor. A recent randomised controlled trial found that telephone consultations can cost-effectively and safely enhance asthma review rates; however, concerns have been expressed about the generalisability and implementation of the trial's findings.

Aim

To evaluate the effectiveness of a telephone option as part of a routine structured asthma review service.

Design of study

Phase IV controlled before-and-after implementation study.

Setting

A large UK general practice.

Method

Using existing administrative groups, all patients with active asthma (n = 1809) received one of three asthma review services: structured recall with a telephone-option for reviews versus structured recall with face-to-face-only reviews, or usual-care (to assess secular trends). Main outcome measures were: proportion of patients with active asthma reviewed within the previous 15 months (Quality and Outcomes Framework target), mode of review, enablement, morbidity, and costs to the practice.

Results

A routine asthma review was provided for 397/598 (66.4%) patients in the telephone-option group compared with 352/654 (53.8%) in the face-to-face-only review group: risk difference 12.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.2 to 17.9, P<0.001). The usual-care group achieved a review rate of 282/557 (50.6%). Morbidity was equivalent in the three groups; however, enablement (P = 0.03) and confidence (P = 0.007) in asthma management were greater in the telephone-option versus face-to-face-only group. The cost per review achieved by providing the telephone-option service was lower than the face-to-face-only service (10.03 pounds versus 12.74 pounds, mean difference 2.71 pounds; 95% CI = 1.92 to 3.50, P<0.001); usual-care costs were 11.85 pounds per review achieved.

Conclusion

Routinely offering telephone reviews cost-effectively increased asthma review rates, enhancing patient enablement and confidence with management, with no detriment to asthma morbidity. Practices should consider a telephone option for their asthma review service.

SUBMITTER: Pinnock H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2151786 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background In 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) revised the 2012 guidelines on use of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The new guidelines recommended lifelong antiretroviral therapy (ART) for all HIV-positive pregnant and breastfeeding women irrespective of CD4 count or clinical stage (also referred to as Option B+). Uganda started implementing Option B+ in 2012 basing on the 2012 WHO guidelines. Despite the impressive benefits of the Option B+ strategy, implementation challenges, including cost burden and mother-baby pairs lost to follow-up, threatened its overall effectiveness. The researchers were unable to identify any studies conducted to assess costs and cost drivers associated with provision of Option B+ services to mother-baby pairs in HIV care in Uganda. Therefore, this study determined costs and cost drivers of providing Option B+ services to mother-baby pairs over a two-year period (2014–2015) in selected health facilities in Jinja district, Uganda. Methods The estimated costs of providing Option B+ to mother-baby pairs derived from the provider perspective were evaluated at four health centres (HC) in Jinja district. A retrospective, ingredient-based costing approach was used to collect data for 2014 as base year using a standardized cost data capture tool. All costs were valued in United States dollars (USD) using the 2014 midyear exchange rate. Costs incurred in the second year (2015) were obtained by inflating the 2014 costs by the ratio of 2015 and 2014 USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) implicit price deflator. Results The average total cost of Option B+ services per HC was 66,512.7 (range: 32,168.2–102,831.1) USD over the 2-year period. The average unit cost of Option B+ services per mother-baby pair was USD 441.9 (range: 422.5–502.6). ART for mothers was the biggest driver of total mean costs (percent contribution: 62.6%; range: 56.0%–65.5%) followed by facility personnel (percent contribution: 8.2%; range: 7.7%–11.6%), and facility-level monitoring and quality improvement (percent contribution: 6.0%; range: 3.2%–12.3%). Conclusions and Recommendations. ART for mothers was the major cost driver. Efforts to lower the cost of ART for PMTCT would make delivery of Option B+ affordable and sustainable.

Project description:BackgroundOnly about a third of people with asthma attend an annual review. Clinicians need to identify cost-effective ways to improve access and ensure regular review.AimTo compare the cost-effectiveness of nurse-led telephone with face-to-face asthma reviews.Design of studyCost-effectiveness analysis based on a 3-month randomised controlled trial.SettingFour general practices in England.MethodAdults due an asthma review were randomised to telephone or face-to-face consultations. Trial nurses recorded proportion reviewed, duration of consultation, and abortive calls/missed appointments. Data on use of healthcare resources were extracted from GP records. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health service perspective; sensitivity analyses were based on proportion reviewed and duration of consultation.ResultsA total of 278 people with asthma were randomised to surgery (n = 141) or telephone (n = 137) review. Onehundred-and-one (74%) of those with asthma in the telephone group were reviewed versus 68 (48%) in the surgery group (P <0.001). Telephone consultations were significantly shorter (mean duration telephone = 11.19 minutes [standard deviation {SD} = 4.79] versus surgery = 21.87 minutes [SD = 6.85], P <0.001). Total respiratory healthcare costs per patient over 3 months were similar (telephone = pounds sterling 64.49 [SD = 73.33] versus surgery = pounds sterling 59.48 [SD = 66.02], P = 0.55). Total costs of providing 101 telephone versus 68 face-to-face asthma reviews were also similar (telephone = pounds sterling 725.84 versus surgery = pounds sterling 755.70), but mean cost per consultation achieved was lower in the telephone arm (telephone = pounds sterling 7.19 [SD = 2.49] versus surgery = pounds sterling 11.11 [SD = 3.50]; mean difference = - pounds sterling 3.92 [95% confidence interval = - pounds sterling 4.84 to pounds sterling 3.01], P <0.001).ConclusionsTelephone consultations enable a greater proportion of asthma patients to be reviewed at no additional cost to the health service. This mode of delivering care improves access and reduces cost per consultation achieved.

Project description:BackgroundIn order to close the gap between discoveries that could improve health, and widespread impact on routine health care practice, there is a need for greater attention to the factors that influence dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices. Evidence synthesis projects (e.g., systematic reviews) could contribute to this effort by collecting and synthesizing data relevant to dissemination and implementation. Such an advance would facilitate the spread of high-value, effective, and sustainable interventions.ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to evaluate the feasibility of extracting factors related to implementation during evidence synthesis in order to enhance the replicability of successes of studies of interventions in health care settings.DesignDrawing on the implementation science literature, we suggest 10 established implementation measures that should be considered when conducting evidence synthesis projects. We describe opportunities to assess these constructs in current literature and illustrate these methods through an example of a systematic review.SubjectsTwenty-nine studies of interventions aimed at improving clinician-patient communication in clinical settings.Key resultsWe identified acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, intervention complexity, penetration, reach, and sustainability as factors that are feasible and appropriate to extract during an evidence synthesis project.ConclusionsTo fully understand the potential value of a health care innovation, it is important to consider not only its effectiveness, but also the process, demands, and resource requirements involved in downstream implementation. While there is variation in the degree to which intervention studies currently report implementation factors, there is a growing demand for this information. Abstracting information about these factors may enhance the value of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis efforts, improving the dissemination and adoption of interventions that are effective, feasible, and sustainable across different contexts.