Dataset Information

The SPORT value compass: do the extra costs of undergoing spine surgery produce better health benefits?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of surgical care versus nonoperative care by measuring longitudinal values: outcomes, satisfaction, and costs. METHODS:This paper aims to summarize available evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial by addressing 2 important questions about outcomes and costs for 3 types of spine problem: (1) how do outcomes and costs of spine patients differ depending on whether they are treated surgically compared with nonoperative care? (2) What is the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year for surgical care over nonoperative care? RESULTS:After 4 years of follow-up, patients with 3 spine conditions that may be treated surgically or nonoperatively have systematic differences in value endpoints. The average surgical patient enjoys better health outcomes and higher treatment satisfaction but incurs higher costs. CONCLUSIONS:Spine care is preference sensitive and because outcomes, satisfaction, and costs vary over time and between patients, data on value can help patients make better-informed decisions and help payers know what their dollars are buying.

SUBMITTER: Weinstein JN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4504199 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The SPORT value compass: do the extra costs of undergoing spine surgery produce better health benefits?

Weinstein James N JN Tosteson Anna N A AN Tosteson Tor D TD Lurie Jon D JD Abdu William A WA Mirza Sohail K SK Zhao Wenyan W Morgan Tamara S TS Nelson Eugene C EC

Medical care 20141201 12

<h4>Background</h4>The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of surgical care versus nonoperative care by measuring longitudinal values: outcomes, satisfaction, and costs.<h4>Methods</h4>This paper aims to summarize available evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial by addressing 2 important questions about outcomes and costs for 3 types of spine problem: (1) how do outcomes and costs of spine patients differ depending on whether th ...[more]

PMID: 25334052

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDescribe what costs and benefits parents across the socioeconomic spectrum weight most heavily when making decisions about sport participation for their children.MethodCross-sectional survey of a nationally representative online panel of parents of children between the ages of 5 and 18 (n = 1025, 52% response rate). Parents rated the importance of a series of potential costs and benefits of youth sport and these responses were compared across tertiles of per capita family income. We first examined the association between family income tertiles and cost and benefit variables. Model-based cluster analysis was then used to identity homogeneous groups of responses to costs and benefits.ResultsIn all income tertiles, the top two benefits of sport were the same: having fun and being physically active. Sport as a means of keeping children out of trouble was very important for 64% of low-income parents as compared to 40% of high-income parents. Obtaining a college athletic scholarship was very important for 26% of low-income parents, as compared to 8% of high-income parents. Relative rankings of potential costs were similar by income tertile, with risk of concussion and other injury and the impact of sport on schoolwork prioritized across tertiles.ConclusionsParents prioritized fun and fitness in sport, and were concerned about injury and the impact of sport on academics. Lower income parents were the most likely to view keeping their child out of trouble, and the potential for a college athletics scholarship, as benefits of sport. Efforts to support parental decision making should be grounded in an understanding that family preferences are contextually constrained. While all parents should be appropriately informed about the potential costs and benefits they are weighting in their sports-related decision making, such family-focused efforts should be balanced with the recognition that structural change is needed to address income-related concerns about sport participation.

Project description:There is growing support for characterizing ecosystem services in order to link conservation and human well-being. However, few studies have explicitly included ecosystem services within systematic conservation planning, and those that have follow two fundamentally different approaches: ecosystem services as intrinsically-important targeted benefits vs. substitutable co-benefits. We present a first comparison of these two approaches in a case study in the Central Interior of British Columbia. We calculated and mapped economic values for carbon storage, timber production, and recreational angling using a geographical information system (GIS). These 'marginal' values represent the difference in service-provision between conservation and managed forestry as land uses. We compared two approaches to including ecosystem services in the site-selection software Marxan: as Targeted Benefits, and as Co-Benefits/Costs (in Marxan's cost function); we also compared these approaches with a Hybrid approach (carbon and angling as targeted benefits, timber as an opportunity cost). For this analysis, the Co-Benefit/Cost approach yielded a less costly reserve network than the Hybrid approach (1.6% cheaper). Including timber harvest as an opportunity cost in the cost function resulted in a reserve network that achieved targets equivalently, but at 15% lower total cost. We found counter-intuitive results for conservation: conservation-compatible services (carbon, angling) were positively correlated with each other and biodiversity, whereas the conservation-incompatible service (timber) was negatively correlated with all other networks. Our findings suggest that including ecosystem services within a conservation plan may be most cost-effective when they are represented as substitutable co-benefits/costs, rather than as targeted benefits. By explicitly valuing the costs and benefits associated with services, we may be able to achieve meaningful biodiversity conservation at lower cost and with greater co-benefits.

Dataset Information

The SPORT value compass: do the extra costs of undergoing spine surgery produce better health benefits?

Publications

The SPORT value compass: do the extra costs of undergoing spine surgery produce better health benefits?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets