Dataset Information

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fining non-attendance at public hospitals: a randomised controlled trial from Danish outpatient clinics.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Fines have been proposed as means for reducing non-attendance in healthcare. The empirical evidence of the effect of fines is however limited. The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fining non-attendance at outpatient clinics. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING:1:1 randomised controlled trial of appointments for an outpatient clinic, posted to Danish addresses, between 1 May 2015 and 30 November 2015. Only first appointment for users was included. Healthcare professionals and investigators were masked. INTERVENTION:A fine of DKK250 (€34) was issued for non-attendance. Users were informed about the fine in case of non-attendance by the appointment letter, and were able to reschedule or cancel until the appointment. A central administration office administered the fine system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The main outcome measures were non-attendance of non-cancelled appointments, fine policy administration costs, net of productivity consequences and probability of fining non-attendance being cost-effective over no fining for a range of hypothetical values of reduced non-attendance. RESULTS:All of the 6746 appointments included were analysed. Of the 3333 appointments randomised to the fine policy, 130 (5%) of non-cancelled appointments were unattended, and of the 3413 appointments randomised to no-fine policy, 131 (5%) were unattended. The cost per appointment of non-attendance was estimated at DKK 56 (SE 5) in the fine group and DKK47 (SE 4) in the no-fine group, leading to a non-statistically significant difference of DKK10 (95% CI -9 to 22) per appointment attributable to the fine policy. The probability of cost-effectiveness remained around 50%, irrespective of increased values of reduced non-attendance or various alternative assumptions used for sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS:At a baseline level of around 5%, fining non-attendance does not seem to further reduce non-attendance. Future studies should focus on other means for reduction of non-attendance such as nudging or negative reinforcement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN61925912.

SUBMITTER: Blæhr EE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5988103 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fining non-attendance at public hospitals: a randomised controlled trial from Danish outpatient clinics.

Blæhr Emely Ek EE Væggemose Ulla U Søgaard Rikke R

BMJ open 20180413 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>Fines have been proposed as means for reducing non-attendance in healthcare. The empirical evidence of the effect of fines is however limited. The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fining non-attendance at outpatient clinics.<h4>Design, participants and setting</h4>1:1 randomised controlled trial of appointments for an outpatient clinic, posted to Danish addresses, between 1 May 2015 and 30 November 2015. Only first appointme ...[more]

PMID: 29654019

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundConfiguring high quality care for the rapidly increasing number of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a major challenge worldwide for both providers and commissioners. In the UK, about two thirds of people with T2D are managed entirely in primary care, with wide variation in management strategies and achievement of targets. Pay for performance, introduced in 2004, initially resulted in improvements but disparities exist in ethnic minorities and the improvements are levelling off. Community based, intermediate care clinics for diabetes (ICCDs) were considered one solution and are functioning across the UK. However, there is no randomised trial evidence for the effectiveness of such clinics.Trial design, methods and findingsThis is a cluster-randomised trial, involving 3 primary care trusts, with 49 general practices randomised to usual care (n=25) or intervention (ICCDs; n=24). All eligible adult patients with T2D were invited; 1997 were recruited and 1280 followed-up after 18-months intervention.Primary outcomeachievement of all three of the NICE targets [(HbA1c ≤ 7.0%/53 mmol/mol; Blood Pressure <140/80 mmHg; cholesterol <154 mg/dl (4 mmol/l)]. PRIMARY OUTCOME was achieved in 14.3% in the intervention arm vs. 9.3% in the control arm (p=0.059 after adjustment for covariates). The odds ratio (95% CI) for achieving primary outcome in the intervention group was 1.56 (0.98, 2.49). Primary care and community clinic costs were significantly higher in the intervention group, but there were no significant differences in hospital costs or overall healthcare costs. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of +£7,778 per QALY gained, indicated ICCD was marginally more expensive at producing health gain.ConclusionsIntermediate care clinics can contribute to improving target achievement in patients with diabetes. Further work is needed to investigate the optimal scale and organisational structure of ICCD services and whether, over time, their role may change as skill levels in primary care increase.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00945204; National Research Register (NRR) M0014178167.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a telehealthcare solution in addition to usual care compared with usual care. DESIGN:A 12-month cost-utility analysis conducted alongside a cluster-randomised trial. SETTING:Community-based setting in the geographical area of North Denmark Region in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS:26 municipality districts define randomisation clusters with 13 districts in each arm. 1225 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were enrolled, of which 578 patients were randomised to telehealthcare and 647 to usual care. INTERVENTIONS:In addition to usual care, patients in the intervention group received a set of telehealthcare equipment and were monitored by a municipality-based healthcare team. Patients in the control group received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years gained from baseline up to 12 months follow-up. RESULTS:From a healthcare and social sector perspective, the adjusted mean difference in total costs between telehealthcare and usual care was €728 (95% CI -754 to 2211) and the adjusted mean difference in quality-adjusted life-years gained was 0.0132 (95% CI -0.0083 to 0.0346). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €55 327 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Decision-makers should be willing to pay more than €55 000 to achieve a probability of cost-effectiveness >50%. This conclusion is robust to changes in the definition of hospital contacts and reduced intervention costs. Only in the most optimistic scenario combining the effects of all sensitivity analyses, does the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio fall below the UK thresholds values (€21 068 per quality-adjusted life-year). CONCLUSIONS:Telehealthcare is unlikely to be a cost-effective addition to usual care, if it is offered to all patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and if the willingness-to-pay threshold values from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence are applied. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01984840, 14 November 2013.

Project description:Background and objectivesCovid-19 vaccines approved by the EU, UK and USA have been found to be safe and effective. The cost effectiveness of these vaccines depends upon a number of factors. The aim of this paper is to explore the cost effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine and to analyse how the price of the vaccine and the cost of administrating it influence its cost effectiveness.MethodsWe considered an epidemiological model developed by an expert group within 'Statens Serum Institut', which is a unit under the auspices of the Danish Ministry of Health. The model allowed us to differentiate between two population groups, those aged ≥60 years and those aged <60 years. We used the model to consider four scenarios: (i) vaccination of 25% of the total population (corresponding to approximately 1.5 million persons) but targeting vaccines towards the population aged ≥60 years, (ii) vaccination of 25% of the total population, targeting vaccines only towards the population aged <60 years, (iii) vaccination of 40% of the total population where 15% are aged <60 years and 25% are aged ≥60 years (corresponding approximately to the full Danish population aged >60 years), and (iv) 40% of the total population is vaccinated but vaccines are targeted solely towards those aged <60 years. The time horizon of the analysis was six months, and the perspective was that of the Danish healthcare sector.ResultsThe results show that inclusion of the elderly population aged ≥60 years was more cost effective than a vaccination strategy that targeted a population aged <60 years old only, when productivity losses were not included. Furthermore, the results show that an extension of the target group from the elderly population only, to also include the younger population comes with an increasing cost per life-year gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio depends on the price of the vaccine, hereunder also the administration costs, and the discount rate used for the estimation of life-years or quality-adjusted life-years gained from a vaccine. Furthermore, inclusion of productivity losses in the analyses influenced the cost effectiveness of vaccination of the population aged <60 years of age.ConclusionThe cost effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine is sensitive to whether or not productivity losses are included in the analyses. Without productivity losses, the elderly population should always be part of the target group for a COVID-19 vaccination programme. Taking productivity losses into account, at least in the case of low vaccine prices, vaccinating the younger population first can actually be cost effective.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fining non-attendance at public hospitals: a randomised controlled trial from Danish outpatient clinics.

Publications

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fining non-attendance at public hospitals: a randomised controlled trial from Danish outpatient clinics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets