Health Benefits Of Interventions Research Articles

Psychometric evaluation of the Mental Health Quality of Life (MHQoL) instrument in seven European countries

IntroductionTo make efficient use of available resources, decision-makers in healthcare may assess the costs and (health) benefits of health interventions. For interventions aimed at improving mental health capturing the full health benefits is an important challenge. The Mental Health Quality of Life (MHQoL) instrument was recently developed to meet this challenge. Evaluating the pyschometric properties of this instrument in different contexts remains important.MethodsA psychometric evaluation of the MHQoL was performed using existing international, cross-sectional data with 7155 respondents from seven European countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, The Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom). Reliability was examined by calculating Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of internal consistency of the seven MHQoL dimensions, and by examining the association of the MHQoL sum scores with the MHQoL-VAS scores. Construct validity was examined by calculating Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between the MHQoL sum scores and EQ-5D index scores, EQ-VAS scores, EQ-5D anxiety/depression dimension scores, ICECAP-A index scores and PHQ-4 sum scores.ResultsThe MHQoL was found to have good internal consistency for all seven countries. The MHQoL sum score and the MHQoL-VAS had a high correlation. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were moderate to very high for all outcomes.ConclusionOur results, based on data gathered in seven European countries, suggest that the MHQoL shows favourable psychometrical characteristics. While further validation remains important, the MHQoL may be a useful instrument in measuring mental health-related quality of life in the Western European context.

An Introduction to the Main Types of Economic Evaluations Used for Informing Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in Healthcare: Key Features, Uses, and Limitations.

Economic evidence is increasingly being used for informing health policies. However, the underlining principles of health economic analyses are not always fully understood by non-health economists, and inappropriate types of analyses, as well as inconsistent methodologies, may be being used for informing health policy decisions. In addition, there is a lack of open access information and methodological guidance targeted to public health professionals, particularly those based in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive and accessible introduction to economic evaluations for public health professionals with a focus on LMIC settings. We cover the main principles underlining the most common types of full economic evaluations used in healthcare decision making in the context of priority setting (namely cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses), and outline their key features, strengths and weaknesses. It is envisioned that this will help those conducting such analyses, as well as stakeholders that need to interpret their output, gain a greater understanding of these methods and help them select/distinguish between the different approaches. In particular, we highlight the need for greater awareness of the methods used to place a monetary value on the health benefits of interventions, and the potential for such estimates to be misinterpreted. Specifically, the economic benefits reported are typically an approximation, summarising the health benefits experienced by a population monetarily in terms of individual preferences or potential productivity gains, rather than actual realisable or fiscal monetary benefits to payers or society.

Health Benefits of Social Participation Interventions among Community-Dwelling Older Persons: A Review Article

ABSTRACT Background: Social disengagement among older persons may result from accumulated physical impact and social stressors experienced throughout life. Conversely, interventions that enhance social participation addresses social isolation with positive influences on health. This article, therefore, aimed to review the range of published studies that evaluated the health benefits of interventions on social participation among community-dwelling older persons.Method: We conducted a search using the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, PubMed, ProQuest, SAGE, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Web of Science, and Open repository/archive.Results: Twenty-five studies from Asia, Europe and America were selected. Included articles described randomized controlled trials (9), quasi-experimental studies (9), mixed-methods studies (2), participatory action research (3), and community-based intervention research (2). Social interventions described are group or cultural activities, personal/group monitoring and discussion, and communications devices. Intervention designed utilized theories, models, concepts, principles, and evidence from published literature.Conclusion: Most social intervention studies evaluating health outcomes have been conducted in North America and Western Europe. Group-based activities were most commonly employed, but personal/group discussions, home visits and technology-based interactions have also been used. While social isolation is now a widely accepted risk factor for ill-health, research evidence for improvement of health through reduction of social isolation remains limited.

Generalised cost-effectiveness analysis of 159 health interventions for the Ethiopian essential health service package

BackgroundCost effectiveness was a criterion used to revise Ethiopia’s essential health service package (EHSP) in 2019. However, there are few cost-effectiveness studies from Ethiopia or directly transferable evidence from other low-income countries to inform a comprehensive revision of the Ethiopian EHSP. Therefore, this paper reports average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) of 159 health interventions used in the revision of Ethiopia’s EHSP.MethodsIn this study, we estimate ACERs for 77 interventions on reproductive maternal neonatal and child health (RMNCH), infectious diseases and water sanitation and hygiene as well as for 82 interventions on non-communicable diseases. We used the standardised World Health Organization (WHO) CHOosing Interventions that are cost effective methodology (CHOICE) for generalised cost-effectiveness analysis. The health benefits of interventions were determined using a population state-transition model, which simulates the Ethiopian population, accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Healthy life years (HLYs) gained was employed as a measure of health benefits. We estimated the economic costs of interventions from the health system perspective, including programme overhead and training costs. We used the Spectrum generalised cost-effectiveness analysis tool for data analysis. We did not explicitly apply cost-effectiveness thresholds, but we used US$100 and $1000 as references to summarise and present the ACER results.ResultsWe found ACERs ranging from less than US$1 per HLY gained (for family planning) to about US$48,000 per HLY gained (for treatment of stage 4 colorectal cancer). In general, 75% of the interventions evaluated had ACERs of less than US$1000 per HLY gained. The vast majority (95%) of RMNCH and infectious disease interventions had an ACER of less than US$1000 per HLY while almost half (44%) of non-communicable disease interventions had an ACER greater than US$1000 per HLY.ConclusionThe present study shows that several potential cost-effective interventions are available that could substantially reduce Ethiopia’s disease burden if scaled up. The use of the World Health Organization’s generalised cost-effectiveness analysis tool allowed us to rapidly calculate country-specific cost-effectiveness analysis values for 159 health interventions under consideration for Ethiopia’s EHSP.

ICER Value Framework 2020 Update: Recommendations on the Aggregation of Benefits and Contextual Considerations.

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the United States recently published a 2020 update to its value assessment framework. We are commenting on the method by which the benefits of health interventions are integrated, relating to contextual considerations and other factors relevant to an intervention's value. We start by discussing the theoretical foundations of decision analysis and its extension to multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Then we provide a detailed, evidence-based response to some of the claims made by ICER with regard to the use of MCDA methods and stakeholder engagement. Finally, we provide a number of recommendations on the use of quantitative decision analysis and decision conferencing that could be of relevance to the ICER methodology. Overall, we agree that some of the proposed changes by ICER are moving in the right direction toward improving transparency in the value assessment process, but these changes are probably inadequate. We advocate that more serious attention should be paid to the use of quantitative decision analysis together with decision conferencing for the construction of value preferences via group processes for the integration of an intervention's various benefit components.

Knowing the costs of change: an introduction to health economic analyses and considerations for their use in implementation research

ABSTRACTEconomic evaluations examine the costs and benefits of health interventions and are commonly used to assist decision makers in the appropriate allocation of health resources. Although considered as an important element for informing knowledge translation, they are yet to be routinely used in implementation research. This tutorial provides an introduction to health economics. It defines the different types of economic analysis including cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost–benefit analysis. The process of planning and collecting data from a health service and societal perspective is discussed, incorporating cost data (human resources, accommodation, and equipment) and outcome data including health-related quality of life measures. Next, an overview of how this data is used in different types of economic analysis is provided, along with how results can be interpreted to guide decision makers. To provide context, four example studies have been chosen to illustrate the application of these concepts in speech-language pathology research. Finally, the application of health economics in implementation research is discussed. This includes informing the cost of implementation and using economic modelling to examine cost changes when altering an intervention’s conditions or environment. Regardless of the analysis to be undertaken, consultation with a health economist is advised to ensure the evaluation is robust and comprehensive, and that the results disseminated use recommended reporting standards to accurately inform the appropriate allocation of healthcare resources.

On discount rates for economic evaluations in global health.

Choices on discount rates have important implications for the outcomes of economic evaluations of health interventions and policies. In global health, such evaluations typically apply a discount rate of 3% for health outcomes and costs, mirroring guidance developed for high-income countries, notably the USA. The article investigates the suitability of these guidelines for global health [i.e. with a focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)] and seeks to identify best practice. Our analysis builds on an overview of the academic literature on discounting in health evaluations, existing academic or government-related guidelines on discounting, a review on discount rates applied in economic evaluations in global health, and cross-country macroeconomic data. The social discount rate generally applied in global health of 3% annually is inconsistent with rates of economic growth experienced outside the most advanced economies. For low- and lower-middle-income countries, a discount rate of at least 5% is more appropriate, and one around 4% for upper-middle-income countries. Alternative approaches-e.g. motivated by the returns to alternative investments or by the cost of financing-could usefully be applied, dependent on policy context. The current practise could lead to systematic bias towards over-valuing the future costs and health benefits of interventions. For health economic evaluations in global health, guidelines on discounting need to be adapted to take account of the different economic contexts of LMICs.

Ciencias de la implementación: de la evidencia a la práctica

La amplia gama de evidencias científicas que respaldan diversas intervenciones clínicas no son suficientes para que dichas intervenciones se utilicen en la práctica. De tal modo que la Medicina Basada en la Evidencia debe dar el paso hacia la Practica Basada en la Evidencia, a través de procesos de implementación que permitan desplegar y contextualizar intervenciones en salud respaldadas por la evidencia. Para tal fin se ha desarrollado la Ciencia de la implementación, la cual investiga los factores que influencian el uso efectivo y completo de las innovaciones científicas en la práctica, intentando maximizar los beneficios de las intervenciones en salud. Esta ciencia se define como el estudio de los métodos que promueven la incorporación sistemática de hallazgos de investigación en la rutina clínica, con el objetivo de mejorar la calidad y efectividad de los servicios e intervenciones en salud. El propósito de este artículo es introducir el concepto de Ciencia de la Implementación en relación con la epidemiología clínica y establecer las razones por las cuales existe una imperiosa necesidad de su desarrollo. Además, tiene el propósito de explicar el porqué de la necesidad de acelerar la aplicación efectiva de la Medicina Basada en Evidencia y definir los principales modelos que precisan el ámbito de trabajo de esta ciencia, incluyendo: las particularidades de los estudios de implementación, sus diferencias con los estudios clásicos de la epidemiología clínica, los modelos de implementación y evaluación, así como la definición de los desenlaces esperados en un estudio de implementación.

Migrants, healthy worker effect, and mortality trends in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries namely, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Saudi Arabia, have experienced unique demographic changes. The major population growth contributor in these countries is young migrants, which has led to a shift in the population age pyramid. Migrants constitute the vast proportion of GCC countries’ population reaching >80% in Qatar and UAE. Using Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (GBD 2015) and United Nations data, for the GCC countries, we assessed the association between age-standardized mortality and population size trends with linear and polynomial regressions. In 1990–2015, all-cause age-standardized mortality was inversely proportional to national population size (p-values: 0.0001–0.0457). In Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia, the highest annual decrease in mortality was observed when the annual population growth was the highest. In Qatar, all-cause age-specific mortality was inversely proportional to age-specific population size. This association was statistically significant among the 5–14 and 15–49 age groups, which have the largest population size. Cause-specific age-standardized mortality was also inversely proportional to population size. This association was statistically significant for half of the GBD 2015-defined causes of death such as “cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases” and “HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis”. Remarkably, incoming migrants to Qatar have to be negative for HIV, hepatitis B and C, and tuberculosis. These results show that decline in mortality can be partly attributed to the increase in GCC countries’ population suggesting a healthy migrant effect that influences mortality rates. Consequently, benefits of health interventions and healthcare improvement are likely to be exaggerated in such countries hosting a substantial proportion of migrants compared with countries where migration is low. Researchers and policymakers should be cautious to not exclusively attribute decline in mortality within the GCC countries as a result of the positive effects of health interventions or healthcare improvement.

A systematic review of modelling approaches in economic evaluations of health interventions for drug and alcohol problems.

BackgroundThe overarching goal of health policies is to maximize health and societal benefits. Economic evaluations can play a vital role in assessing whether or not such benefits occur. This paper reviews the application of modelling techniques in economic evaluations of drug and alcohol interventions with regard to (i) modelling paradigms themselves; (ii) perspectives of costs and benefits and (iii) time frame.MethodsPapers that use modelling approaches for economic evaluations of drug and alcohol interventions were identified by carrying out searches of major databases.ResultsThirty eight papers met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the cohort Markov models remain the most popular approach, followed by decision trees, Individual based model and System dynamics model (SD). Most of the papers adopted a long term time frame to reflect the long term costs and benefits of health interventions. However, it was fairly common among the reviewed papers to adopt a narrow perspective that only takes into account costs and benefits borne by the health care sector.ConclusionsThis review paper informs policy makers about the availability of modelling techniques that can be used to enhance the quality of economic evaluations for drug and alcohol treatment interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1368-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparative healthcare-associated costs of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia-infective endocarditis treated with either daptomycin or vancomycin

Complex infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is associated with high healthcare and societal costs; thus, evaluation of the costs and health benefits of interventions is an important consideration in a modern healthcare system. This study estimated the cost consequences of the use of daptomycin compared with vancomycin for the first-line treatment of patients with proven MRSA-induced bacteraemia-infective endocarditis (SAB-IE) with a vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) >1mg/L in the UK. A decision model was developed to assess total healthcare costs of treatment, including inpatient, outpatient and drug costs. Data were sourced from the literature (treatment efficacy and safety), a physician survey (resource use) and publicly available databases (unit costs). Assuming the same length of stay for daptomycin and vancomycin, the total healthcare costs per patient were £17917 for daptomycin and £17165 for vancomycin. However, extrapolating from published studies and supported by a physician survey, daptomycin was found to require fewer therapeutic switches and a shorter length of stay. When the length of stay was reduced from 42 days to 28 days, daptomycin saved £4037 per person compared with vancomycin. In conclusion, daptomycin is an effective and efficient alternative antibiotic for the treatment of SAB-IE. However, the level of cost saving depends on the extent to which local clinical practice allows early discharge of patients before the end of their antibiotic course when responding to treatment.

Health, Conflict, Stability and Statebuilding: A House Built on Sand?

Increasingly, the purpose of third party health interventions in fragile states has become linked to statebuilding agendas in order to build government through health programmes. However, there is only limited data to support the efficacy of such an assumption. Indeed, this approach may instead invert the desired outcome of social legitimacy and undermine the rationale for which it is intended. This paper examines the strategic response from donors vis-à-vis the objective of statebuilding, and concludes that new research is required. It concludes that until there is empirically based evidence of the benefits of health interventions for statebuilding, the goals of health interventions should remain fixed primarily on improving health indicators instead.

Household cost-benefit equations and sustainable universal childhood immunisation: a randomised cluster controlled trial in south Pakistan [ISRCTN12421731

BackgroundHousehold decision-makers decide about service use based largely on the costs and perceived benefits of health interventions. Very often this leads to different decisions than those imagined by health planners, resulting in under-utilisation of public services like immunisation. In the case of Lasbela district in the south of Pakistan, only one in every ten children is immunised despite free immunisation offers by government health services.Methods/designIn 32 communities representative of Lasbela district, 3344 households participated in a baseline survey on early child health. In the 18 randomly selected intervention communities, we will stimulate discussions on the household cost-benefit equation, as measured in the baseline. The reference (control) communities will also participate in the three annual follow-up surveys, feedback of the general survey results and the usual health promotion activities relating to immunisation, but without focussed discussion on the household cost-benefit equations.DiscussionThis project proposes knowledge translation as a two-way communication that can be augmented by local and international evidence. We will document cultural and contextual barriers to immunisation in the context of household cost-benefit equations. The project makes this information accessible to health managers, and reciprocally, makes information on immunisation effects and side effects available to communities. We will measure the impact of this two-way knowledge translation on immunisation uptake.

The Economical Control of Infectious Diseases

The structure of representative agents and decentralisation of the social planner's problem provide a framework for the economics of infection and associated externalities. Optimal implementation of prevention and therapy depends on: (1) biology including whether infection is person to person or by vectors; (2) whether the infected progress to recovery and susceptibility, immunity, or death; (3) costs of interventions; (4) whether interventions target everyone, the uninfected, the infected, or contacts between the two; (5) individual behaviour leading to two types of externalities. By way of example, if people recover to be susceptible, government subsidies should equally favour prevention and therapy. The economic approach to infectious diseases is in its infancy, somewhat oddly because many economists have long had the intuition that epidemics and infectious diseases are quintessential manifestations of the principle of an externality, itself a central concept in economics (Gersovitz and Hammer, forthcoming a). Furthermore, epidemiology provides ready-made dynamic models of disease transmission and economics provides methods of valuing the costs and benefits of health interventions and methods of dynamic optimisation to guide policy. Policy toward infections is of great importance. Yet only recently have economists begun to look at these questions in a formal way. This paper has two main goals. The overarching goal is to dissect two important externalities involving infectious diseases when there are the options of both prevention and therapy, so that the relative phasing of these two types of interventions is important. To achieve this goal, we need to state the social planner's or first-best problem and to compare it to a representative agent's problem. To avoid compounding the identification of any externalities with problems of myopia, imperfect ability to insure health outcomes, or a disregard for the welfare of future generations, we make assumptions about the behaviour of the representative agent such that these problems do not arise, allowing us to focus exclusively on the externalities that we identify. These assumptions may not always be adequate approximations and a relaxation of these assumptions would lead to further considerations in the design of interventions but we do not deal with these issues in this paper. The economic literature on infectious diseases has taken as its starting point some special although important concerns. This starting point has influenced modelling strategies in ways that we believe obscures the general structure of private choice and consequent externalities in the process of disease transmission.

Revising a priority list based on cost-effectiveness: the role of the prominence effect and distorted utility judgments.

People sometimes object to the results of cost-effectiveness analysis when the analysis produces a ranking of options based on both cost and benefit. We suggest 2 new reasons for these objections: the prominence effect, in which people attend mostly to a more prominent attrbute (benefit as opposed to cost), and distortion of utility judgments. We simulated the production of a cost-effectiveness ranking list in 3 experiments using questionnaires on the World Wide Web. Subjects rated the utility of 16 health benefits using either rating scale or person trade-off elicitation methods. In some experiments, subjects were asked to rate the utility of the health benefits with attention also to the cost of achieving the benefits. In all experiments, at the end, subjects were shown a priority list based on their own utility judgments and were asked whether they wanted to move any of the health benefits up or down the list. In all experiments, subjects wanted to give higher priority to treatments with higher benefit, even when they also had higher cost. They thus wanted to give less weight to high cost (which would, by itself, lead to lower ranking) and more weight to benefit than the weight implied by their own prior judgments. The desire for revision was reduced when subjects made their utility judgments after indicating whether the utility was above or below the midpoint of the scale (a manipulation previously found to reduce distortion). The desire to change cost-effectiveness rankings is in part a preference reversal phenomenon that occurs because people attend mainly to the benefit of health interventions as opposed to cost, when they examine the ranking. People should be wary of tinkering with priority lists by examining the lists themselves.

Health state values from multiattribute utility instruments need correction

Cost-utility analysis uses the quality-adjusted life year (QALV) as a measure of the benefit of health interventions. It presupposes the assignment of utility scores to different states of health on a scale from zero (dead) to unity (healthy). A number of so-called multiattribute utility (MAU) instruments are available for this purpose. Analysts who wish to use MAU instruments in economic evaluations of health programmes and technologies may improve their performance by conducting two different analyses: the first is a conventional cost-utility study, in which the utilities from MAU instruments are used as they stand, and the second is a study in which the utilities are transformed into numbers that also encapsulate concerns for giving priority to the worst off. The term ‘cost-value analysis’ is used for the latter, broader approach. A figure is offered as a preliminary tool to help conduct the required transformations.

Paying for health services: A public health view

Several factors are shaping the need and demand for health care; these include demographic change, the differential improvement in the survival of those with chronic conditions, and the mismatch between personal income and health. Also, medical uncertainty results in vast variations in medical practice and costs. The scope for increasing the supply of medical care, selectively to the rich or across the board, is already vast and growing. It is argued that efficient financing systems can operate only at a level at which the health benefits of interventions are measurable, i.e. the population level. Systems of individual payment are based on inevitable ignorance about expected benefits and must therefore introduce perverse (and necessarily inefficient) incentives. Population based monitoring of outcome, with coupled incentives to efficient producers, would appear to be the only method of encouraging the production of maximum social benefit from the resources used for health.