Dataset Information

Cost analysis for computer supported multiple-choice paper examinations.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Multiple-choice-examinations are still fundamental for assessment in medical degree programs. In addition to content related research, the optimization of the technical procedure is an important question. Medical examiners face three options: paper-based examinations with or without computer support or completely electronic examinations. Critical aspects are the effort for formatting, the logistic effort during the actual examination, quality, promptness and effort of the correction, the time for making the documents available for inspection by the students, and the statistical analysis of the examination results. METHODS: Since three semesters a computer program for input and formatting of MC-questions in medical and other paper-based examinations is used and continuously improved at Wuerzburg University. In the winter semester (WS) 2009/10 eleven, in the summer semester (SS) 2010 twelve and in WS 2010/11 thirteen medical examinations were accomplished with the program and automatically evaluated. For the last two semesters the remaining manual workload was recorded. RESULTS: The cost of the formatting and the subsequent analysis including adjustments of the analysis of an average examination with about 140 participants and about 35 questions was 5-7 hours for exams without complications in the winter semester 2009/2010, about 2 hours in SS 2010 and about 1.5 hours in the winter semester 2010/11. Including exams with complications, the average time was about 3 hours per exam in SS 2010 and 2.67 hours for the WS 10/11. DISCUSSION: For conventional multiple-choice exams the computer-based formatting and evaluation of paper-based exams offers a significant time reduction for lecturers in comparison with the manual correction of paper-based exams and compared to purely electronically conducted exams it needs a much simpler technological infrastructure and fewer staff during the exam.

SUBMITTER: Mandel A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3244735 | biostudies-other | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost analysis for computer supported multiple-choice paper examinations.

Mandel Alexander A Hörnlein Alexander A Ifland Marianus M Lüneburg Edeltraud E Deckert Jürgen J Puppe Frank F

GMS Zeitschrift fur medizinische Ausbildung 20111115 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Multiple-choice-examinations are still fundamental for assessment in medical degree programs. In addition to content related research, the optimization of the technical procedure is an important question. Medical examiners face three options: paper-based examinations with or without computer support or completely electronic examinations. Critical aspects are the effort for formatting, the logistic effort during the actual examination, quality, promptness and effort of the co ...[more]

PMID: 22205913

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSkin prick tests (SPTs), or intraepidermal tests, are often the first diagnostic approach for people with a suspected allergy. Together with the clinical history, SPTs allow doctors to draw conclusions on allergies based on the sensitization pattern. The purpose of this study is to investigate the potential cost consequences that would accrue to a Swiss University hospital after the adoption of computer vision-based SPTs.MethodsWe conducted a cost-consequence analysis from a hospital's perspective to evaluate the potential cost consequences of using a computer vision-based system to read SPT results. The patient population consisted of individuals who were referred to the allergology department of one of the five university hospitals in Switzerland, Inselspital, whose allergology department averages 100 SPTs a week. We developed an early cost-consequence model comparing two SPT techniques; computer vision-based SPTs conducted with the aid of Nexkin DSPT and standard fully manual SPTs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and additional univariate sensitivity analyses were used to account for uncertainty.ResultsThe difference in average cost between the two alternatives from a hospital's perspective was estimated to be CHF 7 per SPT, in favour of the computer vison-based SPTs. Monte Carlo probabilistic simulation also indicated that SPTs conducted using the computer vision-based system were cost saving compared to standard fully manual SPTs. Sensitivity analyses additionally demonstrated the robustness of the base case result subject to plausible changes in all the input parameters, with parameters representing the costs associated with both SPT techniques having the largest influence on the incremental cost. However, higher sensitization prevalence rates seemed to favour the more accurate standard fully manual SPTs.ConclusionAgainst the backdrop of rising healthcare costs especially in Switzerland, using computer-aided or (semi) automated diagnostic systems could play an important role in healthcare cost containment efforts. However, results should be taken with caution because of the uncertainty associated with the early nature of our analysis and the specific Swiss context adopted in this study.

Project description:BackgroundThe food system has a dynamic influence on disparities in food security and diet-related chronic disease. Community supported agriculture (CSA) programs, in which households receive weekly shares of produce from a local farmer during the growing season, have been examined as a possible food systems-based approach for improving diet and health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost of implementing and participating in a multi-component subsidized community supported agriculture intervention and calculate cost-effectiveness based on diet and food security impacts.MethodsUsing data from the Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids (F3HK) randomized controlled trial in New York, North Carolina, Vermont, and Washington (n = 305; 2016-2018), we estimated programmatic and participant costs and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for caregivers' daily fruit and vegetable (FV) intake, skin carotenoids, and household food security from program and societal perspectives.ResultsF3HK cost $2,439 per household annually ($1,884 in implementation-related expenses and $555 in participant-incurred costs). ICERs ranged from $1,507 to $2,439 per cup increase in caregiver's FV intake (depending on perspective, setting, and inclusion of juice); from $502 to $739 per one thousand unit increase in skin carotenoid score; and from $2,271 to $3,137 per household shifted out of food insecurity.ConclusionsGiven the known public health, healthcare, and economic consequences of insufficient FV intake and living in a food insecure household, the costs incurred to support these positive shifts in individual- and household-level outcomes via a F3HK-like intervention may be deemed by stakeholders as a reasonable investment. This work helps to advance a critical body of literature on the cost-effectiveness of subsidized CSAs and other economic and food system interventions for the sake of evidence-based allocation of public health resources.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02770196. Registered 5 April 2016. Retrospectively registered. https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov/ct2/show/NCT02770196 .

Project description:Although arteriovenous fistulas have been found to be the most cost-effective form of hemodialysis access, the relative benefits of placing an arteriovenous fistula versus an arteriovenous graft seem to be least certain for older adults and when placed preemptively. However, older adults' life expectancy is heterogeneous, and most patients do not undergo permanent access creation until after dialysis initiation. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of arteriovenous fistula placement after dialysis initiation in older adults as a function of age and life expectancy.Using a hypothetical cohort of patients on incident hemodialysis with central venous catheters, we constructed Markov models of three treatment options: (1) arteriovenous fistula placement, (2) arteriovenous graft placement, or (3) continued catheter use. Costs, utilities, and transitional probabilities were derived from existing literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by age group (65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, and 85-89 years old) and quartile of life expectancy. Costs, quality-adjusted life-months, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were evaluated for up to 5 years.The arteriovenous fistula option was cost effective compared with continued catheter use for all age and life expectancy groups, except for 85-89 year olds in the lowest life expectancy quartile. The arteriovenous fistula option was more cost effective than the arteriovenous graft option for all quartiles of life expectancy among the 65- to 69-year-old age group. For older age groups, differences in cost-effectiveness between the strategies were attenuated, and the arteriovenous fistula option tended to only be cost effective in patients with life expectancy >2 years. For groups for which the arteriovenous fistula option was not cost saving, the cost to gain one quality-adjusted life-month ranged from $2294 to $14,042.Among older adults, the cost-effectiveness of an arteriovenous fistula placed within the first month of dialysis diminishes with increasing age and lower life expectancy and is not the most cost-effective option for those with the most limited life expectancy.

Project description:BackgroundForty-five percent of births in the United States are unintended, and the costs of unintended pregnancy and birth are substantial. Clinical and policy interventions that increase access to the most effective reversible contraceptive methods (intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants) have potential to generate significant cost savings. Evidence of cost savings for these interventions is needed.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-savings analysis of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, which provided counseling and no-cost contraception, to demonstrate the value of investment in enhanced contraceptive care to the Missouri Medicaid program.Study designThe Contraceptive CHOICE Project was a prospective cohort study of 9256 reproductive-age women who were enrolled between 2007 and 2011. Study follow-up was completed October 2013. This analysis includes 5061 Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants who were current Missouri Medicaid beneficiaries or were uninsured and reported household incomes <201% of the federal poverty line. We created a simulated comparison group of women who were receiving care through the Missouri Title X program and modeled the contraception and pregnancy outcomes that would have occurred in the absence of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. Data about contraceptive use for the comparison group (N=5061) were obtained from the Missouri Title X program and adjusted based on age, race, ethnicity, and income. To make an accurate comparison that would account for the difference in the 2 populations, we used our simulation model to estimate total Contraceptive CHOICE Project costs and total comparison group costs. We reported all costs in 2013 dollars to account for inflation.ResultsAmong the Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants who were included, the uptake of intrauterine devices and implants was 76.1% compared with 4.8% among the comparison group. The estimated contraceptive cost for the simulated Contraceptive CHOICE Project group was $4.0 million vs $2.3 million for the comparison group. The estimated numbers of unintended pregnancies and births averted among the simulated Contraceptive CHOICE Project group compared with the comparison group were 927 and 483, respectively, which represented a savings in pregnancy and maternity care of $6.7 million. We estimated that the total cost savings for the state of Missouri attributable to the Contraceptive CHOICE Project was $5.0 million (40.7%) over the project duration.ConclusionA program providing counseling and no-cost contraception yields substantial cost savings because of the increased uptake of highly effective contraception and consequent averted unintended pregnancy and birth.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the frequency, determinants, clinical implications, and costs of recommendations for additional imaging (RAIs) in secondary interpretations of abdominal imaging examinations.MethodsThis retrospective study included 2225 abdominal imaging examinations from outside institutions that were reinterpreted as part of standard clinical care at a tertiary care center in a one-year time frame.ResultsTwo hundred forty-six RAIs were present in 231 of 2225 reports (10.4%) of secondary abdominal imaging interpretations. Patient age and experience of the radiologist who performed the secondary interpretation were independently significantly associated with the presence of an RAI (both p?=?0.002), with odds ratios of 0.99 per year increase in patient age (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.00) and 1.06 per year increase in experience of the radiologist (95% CI, 1.02-1.10). If followed, RAIs changed clinical management in 31.2%. Total costs of all 246 RAIs, whether performed or not by the referring physicians, amounted to €71,032.21, thus resulting in €31.92 per secondary abdominal imaging interpretation. Total costs of the 140 RAIs that were actually performed by the referring physicians amounted to €42,683.08, resulting in €19.18 per secondary abdominal imaging interpretation.ConclusionsThe frequency of RAIs in reports of secondary interpretations of abdominal imaging examinations (which appear to be affected by patients' age and radiologists' experience) and associated costs are non-negligible. However, RAIs not infrequently change clinical management. The presented data may be helpful to radiology departments and healthcare policy makers to make well-informed decisions on the value and facilitation of the practice of secondary interpretations.Key points• Frequency of recommendations for additional imaging (RAIs) in secondary interpretations of abdominal imaging examinations at a tertiary care center is approximately 10.4%. • RAIs appear to be more frequently issued in younger patients and by more experienced radiologists, and if followed by referring clinicians, change clinical management in about one third of cases. • RAI costs per secondary interpretation in the Dutch Healthcare system are €31.92 (considering all RAIs) or €19.18 (considering only those RAIs that are actually performed).

Dataset Information

Cost analysis for computer supported multiple-choice paper examinations.

Publications

Cost analysis for computer supported multiple-choice paper examinations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets