Dataset Information

Decision Making for Healthcare Resource Allocation: Joint v. Separate Decisions on Interacting Interventions.

ABSTRACT: Standard guidance for allocating healthcare resources based on cost-effectiveness recommends using different decision rules for independent and mutually exclusive alternatives, although there is some confusion around the definition of "mutually exclusive." This paper reviews the definitions used in the literature and shows that interactions (i.e., non-additive effects, whereby the effect of giving 2 interventions simultaneously does not equal the sum of their individual effects) are the defining feature of mutually exclusive alternatives: treatments cannot be considered independent if the costs and/or benefits of one treatment are affected by the other treatment. The paper then identifies and categorizes the situations in which interventions are likely to have non-additive effects, including interventions targeting the same goal or clinical event, or life-saving interventions given to overlapping populations. We demonstrate that making separate decisions on interventions that have non-additive effects can prevent us from maximizing health gained from the healthcare budget. In contrast, treating combinations of independent options as though they were "mutually exclusive" makes the analysis more complicated but does not affect the conclusions. Although interactions are considered by the World Health Organization, other decision makers, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), currently make independent decisions on treatments likely to have non-additive effects. We propose a framework by which interactions could be considered when selecting, prioritizing, and appraising healthcare technologies to ensure efficient, evidence-based decision making.

SUBMITTER: Dakin H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5949981 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Health systems in many different countries have increasingly been reorienting the delivery of dementia care to home and community care settings. This paper provides information on how health and social care professionals (HSCPs) in Ireland make decisions on resource allocation for people with dementia living at home and how resource constraints affect their decisions and choices. Methods: A balance of care approach was used to assess resource allocation across six dementia case types, from low to high needs. Workshops were held with 24 HSCPs from multiple disciplines. Participants allocated services in two scenarios: allocation with and without a budget constraint. Nominal group technique was used to structure discussions around resource allocation in both scenarios. Thematic analysis was applied to analyse the qualitative data using a general inductive approach. Results: The following themes influenced allocative deliberations: whose needs are being met; what needs are identified; decision making context; decision making process; and allocation outcomes. Participants were proficient in making decisions, using 'decision rules' or heuristics to help them make decisions under fixed budget rules and sticking to conventional provision when constraints were in place. Conclusions: Freedom from a budget constraint allowed HSCPs to consider a broader range of services and to take a more expansive view on what needs should be considered, with a particular emphasis on adopting a proactive, preventative approach to the allocation of resources. The effect of the budget constraint overall was to narrow all considerations, using heuristics to limit the type of needs addressed and the range of services and supports provided. The consequences were a largely reactive, less personalised system of care. The findings emphasise the need for an integrated and comprehensive assessment process that is more concerned with individualised responses rather than relying on existing models of care alone.

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge translation (KT, also known as research utilization, and sometimes referring to implementation science) is a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health. A KT intervention is one which facilitates the uptake of research. The long-term sustainability of KT interventions is unclear. We aimed to characterize KT interventions to manage chronic diseases that have been used for healthcare outcomes beyond 1 year or beyond the termination of initial grant funding.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Campbell from inception until February 2013. We included experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies providing information on the sustainability of KT interventions for managing chronic diseases in adults and focusing on end-users including patients, clinicians, public health officials, health service managers, and policy-makers. Articles were screened and abstracted by two reviewers, independently. The data were charted and results described narratively.ResultsWe included 62 studies reported in 103 publications (total 260,688 patients) plus 41 companion reports after screening 12,328 titles and abstracts and 464 full-text articles. More than half of the studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The duration of the KT intervention ranged from 61 to 522 weeks. Nine chronic conditions were examined across the studies, such as diabetes (34 %), cardiovascular disease (28 %), and hypertension (16 %). Thirteen KT interventions were reported across the studies. Patient education was the most commonly examined (20 %), followed by self-management (17 %). Most studies (61 %) focused on patient-level outcomes (e.g. disease severity), while 31 % included system-level outcomes (e.g. number of eye examinations), and 8 % used both. The interventions were aimed at the patient (58 %), health system (28 %), and healthcare personnel (14 %) levels.ConclusionsWe found few studies focusing on the sustainability of KT interventions. Most of the included studies focused on patient-level outcomes and patient-level KT interventions. A future systematic review can be conducted of the RCTs to examine the impact of sustainable KT interventions on health outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionShared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as a key component of person-centred care and recovery from mental illness. Although the principles of SDM have been well documented, there is a lack of guidance about how to accomplish SDM in mental healthcare. The objective of the present protocol is to describe the methods for an umbrella review to determine the effectiveness elements of SDM interventions for persons diagnosed with a mental illness. An umbrella review's key characteristic is that it only considers for inclusion the highest level of evidence, namely other systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Methods and analysisElectronic searches will be performed in CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Ovid PsycINFO. Based on Joanna Briggs Institute recommended guidelines, review articles will be included if they were published between 2010 and 2021. This approach will help identify current and emerging evidence-based treatment options in mental illness. Included articles will be assessed for quality using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool and ratings of the quality of evidence in each review. Presentation of results will align with guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement. Findings will be stratified by mode of intervention and implementation characteristics and will inform development of SDM taxonomy in mental healthcare.Ethics and disseminationThis umbrella review will focus on the analysis of secondary data and does not require ethics approval. Findings will be disseminated widely to clinicians, researchers and services users via journal publication, conference presentations and social media. The results will contribute to the conceptualisation and understanding of effective SDM interventions in mental healthcare and to improving the quality of SDM for individuals with a mental illness.Prospero registration numberCRD42020190700.

Project description:ContextThe prevalence of hypertension in developing countries is coming closer to values found in developed countries. However, surveys usually rely on readings taken at a single visit, the option to implement the diagnosis on readings taken at multiple visits, being limited by costs.ObjectiveTo estimate more accurately the magnitude and extent of the resource that should be allocated to the prevention of hypertension.DesignPopulation-based cross-sectional survey with triplicate blood pressure (BP) readings taken on two separate home-visits.SettingRural and urban locations in three areas of Yemen (capital, inland and coast).ParticipantsA nationally representative sample of the Yemen population aged 15-69 years (5063 men and 5179 women), with an overall response rate of 92% in urban and 94% in rural locations.Main outcome measureHypertension diagnosed as systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg and/or self-reported use of antihypertensive drugs.ResultsHypertension prevalence (age-standardised to the WHO world population 2001) based on fulfilling the same criteria on both visits (11.3%; 95% Cl 10.7% to 11.9%), was 35% lower than estimation based on the first visit (17.3%; 16.5% to 18.0%). Advanced age, blood glucose ≥7 mmol/l or proteinuria ≥1+ at dipstick test at visit one were significant predictors of confirmation at visit 2. The 959 participants found to be hypertensive at visit 1 or at visit 2 only and thus excluded from the final diagnosis had a rate of proteinuria (5.0%; 3.8% to 6.5%) comparable to rates of the general population (6.1%; 5.6% to 6.6%), and of subjects normotensive at both visits (5.6%; 5.1% to 6.2%). Only 1.9% of Yemen population classified at high or very high cardiovascular (CV) risk at visit 1 moved to average, low or moderate CV risk categories after two visits.ConclusionsHypertension prevalence based on readings obtained after two visits is 35% lower than estimation based on the first visit, subjects were excluded from final diagnosis belonging to low CV risk classes.

Project description:BackgroundImplementing evidence into clinical practice is a key focus of healthcare improvements to reduce unwarranted variation. Dissemination of evidence-based recommendations and knowledge brokering have emerged as potential strategies to achieve evidence implementation by influencing resource allocation decisions. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of these two research implementation strategies to facilitate evidence-informed healthcare management decisions for the provision of inpatient weekend allied health services.Methods and findingsThis multicentre, single-blinded (data collection and analysis), three-group parallel cluster randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation was conducted in Australian and New Zealand hospitals between February 2018 and January 2020. Clustering and randomisation took place at the organisation level where weekend allied health staffing decisions were made (e.g., network of hospitals or single hospital). Hospital wards were nested within these decision-making structures. Three conditions were compared over a 12-month period: (1) usual practice waitlist control; (2) dissemination of written evidence-based practice recommendations; and (3) access to a webinar-based knowledge broker in addition to the recommendations. The primary outcome was the alignment of weekend allied health provision with practice recommendations at the cluster and ward levels, addressing the adoption, penetration, and fidelity to the recommendations. The secondary outcome was mean hospital length of stay at the ward level. Outcomes were collected at baseline and 12 months later. A total of 45 clusters (n = 833 wards) were randomised to either control (n = 15), recommendation (n = 16), or knowledge broker (n = 14) conditions. Four (9%) did not provide follow-up data, and no adverse events were recorded. No significant effect was found with either implementation strategy for the primary outcome at the cluster level (recommendation versus control β 18.11 [95% CI -8,721.81 to 8,758.02] p = 0.997; knowledge broker versus control β 1.24 [95% CI -6,992.60 to 6,995.07] p = 1.000; recommendation versus knowledge broker β -9.12 [95% CI -3,878.39 to 3,860.16] p = 0.996) or ward level (recommendation versus control β 0.01 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.75] p = 0.983; knowledge broker versus control β -0.12 [95% CI -0.54 to 0.30] p = 0.581; recommendation versus knowledge broker β -0.19 [-1.04 to 0.65] p = 0.651). There was no significant effect between strategies for the secondary outcome at ward level (recommendation versus control β 2.19 [95% CI -1.36 to 5.74] p = 0.219; knowledge broker versus control β -0.55 [95% CI -1.16 to 0.06] p = 0.075; recommendation versus knowledge broker β -3.75 [95% CI -8.33 to 0.82] p = 0.102). None of the control or knowledge broker clusters transitioned to partial or full alignment with the recommendations. Three (20%) of the clusters who only received the written recommendations transitioned from nonalignment to partial alignment. Limitations include underpowering at the cluster level sample due to the grouping of multiple geographically distinct hospitals to avoid contamination.ConclusionsOwing to a lack of power at the cluster level, this trial was unable to identify a difference between the knowledge broker strategy and dissemination of recommendations compared with usual practice for the promotion of evidence-informed resource allocation to inpatient weekend allied health services. Future research is needed to determine the interactions between different implementation strategies and healthcare contexts when translating evidence into healthcare practice.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000029291.

Dataset Information

Decision Making for Healthcare Resource Allocation: Joint v. Separate Decisions on Interacting Interventions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets