Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-10 (10)

Clipboard (0)

Select a Filter Below

more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Effectiveness of general practice-based health checks: a systematic review and meta-analysis 
A recent review concluded that general health checks fail to reduce mortality in adults.
This review focuses on general practice-based health checks and their effects on both surrogate and final outcomes.
Design and setting
Systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
Relevant data were extracted from randomised trials comparing the health outcomes of general practice-based health checks versus usual care in middle-aged populations.
Six trials were included. The end-point differences between the intervention and control arms in total cholesterol (TC), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), and body mass index (BMI) were −0.13 mmol/l (95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.19 to −0.07), −3.65 mmHg (95% CI = −6.50 to −0.81), −1.79 mmHg (95% CI = −2.93 to −0.64), and −0.45 kg/m2 (95% CI = −0.66 to −0.24), respectively. The odds of a patient remaining at ‘high risk’ with elevated TC, SBP, DBP, BMI or continuing smoking were 0.63 (95% CI = 0.50 to 0.79), 0.59 (95% CI = 0.28 to 1.23), 0.63 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.74), 0.89 (95% CI = 0.81 to 0.98), and 0.91 (95% CI = 0.82 to 1.02), respectively. There was little evidence of a difference in total mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.18). Higher CVD mortality was observed in the intervention group (OR 1.30, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.66).
General practice-based health checks are associated with statistically significant, albeit clinically small, improvements in surrogate outcome control, especially among high-risk patients. Most studies were not originally designed to assess mortality.
PMCID: PMC3876170  PMID: 24567582
general practice; health check; mortality; primary health care; risk factors; systematic review
2.  Disinvestment policy and the public funding of assisted reproductive technologies: outcomes of deliberative engagements with three key stakeholder groups 
Measures to improve the quality and sustainability of healthcare practice and provision have become a policy concern. In addition, the involvement of stakeholders in health policy decision-making has been advocated, as complex questions arise around the structure of funding arrangements in a context of limited resources. Using a case study of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), deliberative engagements with a range of stakeholder groups were held on the topic of how best to structure the distribution of Australian public funding in this domain.
Deliberative engagements were carried out with groups of ART consumers, clinicians and community members. The forums were informed by a systematic review of ART treatment safety and effectiveness (focusing, in particular, on maternal age and number of treatment cycles), as well as by international policy comparisons, and ethical and cost analyses. Forum discussions were transcribed and subject to thematic analysis.
Each forum demonstrated stakeholders’ capacity to understand concepts of choice under resource scarcity and disinvestment, and to countenance options for ART funding not always aligned with their interests. Deliberations in each engagement identified concerns around ‘equity’ and ‘patient responsibility’, culminating in a broad preference for (potential) ART subsidy restrictions to be based upon individual factors rather than maternal age or number of treatment cycles. Community participants were open to restrictions based upon measures of body mass index (BMI) and smoking status, while consumers and clinicians saw support to improve these factors as part of an ART treatment program, as distinct from a funding criterion. All groups advocated continued patient co-payments, with measures in place to provide treatment access to those unable to pay (namely, equity of access).
Deliberations yielded qualitative, socially-negotiated evidence required to inform ethical, accountable policy decisions in the specific area of ART and health care more broadly. Notably, reductionist, deterministic characterizations of stakeholder ‘self-interest’ proved unfounded as each group sought to prioritise universal values (in particular, ‘equity’ and ‘responsibility’) over specific, within-group concerns. Our results - from an emotive case study in ART - highlight that evidence-informed disinvestment decision-making is feasible, and potentially less controversial than often presumed.
PMCID: PMC4016640  PMID: 24885716
Australia; Evidence-based health policy; Deliberative methods; Discourse analysis; Disinvestment; Assisted reproductive technology
3.  The ASTUTE Health study protocol: Deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment 
Governments and other payers are yet to determine optimal processes by which to review the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of technologies and procedures that are in active use within health systems, and rescind funding (partially or fully) from those that display poor profiles against these parameters. To further progress a disinvestment agenda, a model is required to support payers in implementing disinvestment in a transparent manner that may withstand challenge from vested interests and concerned citizens. Combining approaches from health technology assessment and deliberative democratic theory, this project seeks to determine if and how wide stakeholder engagement can contribute to improved decision-making processes, wherein the views of both vested and non-vested stakeholders are seen to contribute to informing policy implementation within a disinvestment context.
Systematic reviews pertaining to illustrative case studies were developed and formed the evidence base for discussion. Review findings were presented at a series of deliberative, evidence-informed stakeholder engagements, including partisan (clinicians and consumers) and non-partisan (representative community members) stakeholders. Participants were actively facilitated towards identifying shared and dissenting perspectives regarding public funding policy for each of the case studies and developing their own funding models in response to the evidence presented. Policy advisors will subsequently be invited to evaluate disinvestment options based on the scientific and colloquial evidence presented to them, and to explore the value of this information to their decision-making processes with reference to disinvestment.
Analysis of the varied outputs of the deliberative engagements will contribute to the methodological development around how to best integrate scientific and colloquial evidence for consideration by policy advisors. It may contribute to the legitimization of broad and transparent stakeholder engagement in this context. It is anticipated that decision making will benefit from the knowledge delivered through informed deliberation with engaged stakeholders, and this will be explored through interviews with key decision makers.
PMCID: PMC3520863  PMID: 23088222
Public participation; User involvement; Disinvestment; Policy
4.  1-(Thio­phen-2-yl)-N-(4-{(E)-[(thio­phen-2-yl)meth­yl]imino­meth­yl}benzyl­idene)methanamine 
The title compound C18H16N2S2, crystallizes with two independent half-mol­ecules in the asymmetric unit, in one of which the thio­phene rings are disordered in a 0.67:0.33 ratio. Each independent mol­ecule lies across a crystallographic centre of symmetry. The dihedral angle between central (half) benzene ring and the thiophene ring is 11.82°.
PMCID: PMC3515239  PMID: 23284459
5.  1,4-Bis[(2-pyridyl­eth­yl)imino­meth­yl]benzene 
In the title compound, C22H22N4, the centroid of the benzene ring is located on an inversion centre. The dihedral angle between the benzene and pyridine rings is 10.94 (5)°. The crystal structure displays weak inter­molecular C—H⋯N hydrogen bonding and C—H⋯π inter­actions.
PMCID: PMC3099859  PMID: 21754192
7.  Including the public in pandemic planning: a deliberative approach 
BMC Public Health  2010;10:501.
Against a background of pandemic threat posed by SARS and avian H5N1 influenza, this study used deliberative forums to elucidate informed community perspectives on aspects of pandemic planning.
Two deliberative forums were carried out with members of the South Australian community. The forums were supported by a qualitative study with adults and youths, systematic reviews of the literature and the involvement of an extended group of academic experts and policy makers. The forum discussions were recorded with simultaneous transcription and analysed thematically.
Participants allocated scarce resources of antiviral drugs and pandemic vaccine based on a desire to preserve society function in a time of crisis. Participants were divided on the acceptability of social distancing and quarantine measures. However, should such measures be adopted, they thought that reasonable financial, household and psychological support was essential. In addition, provided such support was present, the participants, in general, were willing to impose strict sanctions on those who violated quarantine and social distancing measures.
The recommendations from the forums suggest that the implementation of pandemic plans in a severe pandemic will be challenging, but not impossible. Implementation may be more successful if the public is engaged in pandemic planning before a pandemic, effective communication of key points is practiced before and during a pandemic and if judicious use is made of supportive measures to assist those in quarantine or affected by social isolation measures.
PMCID: PMC2931476  PMID: 20718996
8.  The cost-effectiveness of point of care testing in a general practice setting: results from a randomised controlled trial 
While point of care testing (PoCT) for general practitioners is becoming increasingly popular, few studies have investigated whether it represents value for money. This study aims to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of PoCT in general practice (GP) compared to usual testing practice through a pathology laboratory.
A cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized controlled trial with 4,968 patients followed up for 18 months and fifty-three general practices in urban, rural and remote locations across three states in Australia.
The incremental costs and health outcomes associated with a clinical strategy of PoCT for INR, HbA1c, lipids, and ACR were compared to those from pathology laboratory testing. Costs were expressed in year 2006 Australian dollars. Non-parametric bootstrapping was used to generate 95% confidence intervals.
The point estimate of the total direct costs per patient to the health care sector for PoCT was less for ACR than for pathology laboratory testing, but greater for INR, HbA1c and Lipids, although none of these differences was statistically significant. PoCT led to significant cost savings to patients and their families. When uncertainty around the point estimates was taken into account, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PoCT was found to be unfavourable for INR, but somewhat favourable for ACR, while substantial uncertainty still surrounds PoCT for HbA1c and Lipids.
The decision whether to fund PoCT will depend on the price society is willing to pay for achievement of the non-standard intermediate outcome indicator.
Trial registration
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12605000272695
PMCID: PMC2905350  PMID: 20546629
9.  Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices 
Internationally, many health care interventions were diffused prior to the standard use of assessments of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Disinvestment from ineffective or inappropriately applied practices is a growing priority for health care systems for reasons of improved quality of care and sustainability of resource allocation. In this paper we examine key challenges for disinvestment from these interventions and explore potential policy-related avenues to advance a disinvestment agenda.
We examine five key challenges in the area of policy driven disinvestment: 1) lack of resources to support disinvestment policy mechanisms; 2) lack of reliable administrative mechanisms to identify and prioritise technologies and/or practices with uncertain clinical and cost-effectiveness; 3) political, clinical and social challenges to removing an established technology or practice; 4) lack of published studies with evidence demonstrating that existing technologies/practices provide little or no benefit (highlighting complexity of design) and; 5) inadequate resources to support a research agenda to advance disinvestment methods. Partnerships are required to involve government, professional colleges and relevant stakeholder groups to put disinvestment on the agenda. Such partnerships could foster awareness raising, collaboration and improved health outcome data generation and reporting. Dedicated funds and distinct processes could be established within the Medical Services Advisory Committee and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to, a) identify technologies and practices for which there is relative uncertainty that could be the basis for disinvestment analysis, and b) conduct disinvestment assessments of selected item(s) to address existing practices in an analogous manner to the current focus on new and emerging technology. Finally, dedicated funding and cross-disciplinary collaboration is necessary to build health services and policy research capacity, with a focus on advancing disinvestment research methodologies and decision support tools.
The potential over-utilisation of less than effective clinical practices and the potential under-utilisation of effective clinical practices not only result in less than optimal care but also fragmented, inefficient and unsustainable resource allocation. Systematic policy approaches to disinvestment will improve equity, efficiency, quality and safety of care, as well as sustainability of resource allocation.
PMCID: PMC2174492  PMID: 17973993
10.  Costs and consequences of treatment for mild gestational diabetes mellitus – evaluation from the ACHOIS randomised trial 
Recommended best practice is that economic evaluation of health care interventions should be integral with randomised clinical trials. We performed a cost-consequence analysis of treating women with mild gestational diabetes mellitus by dietary advice, blood glucose monitoring and insulin therapy as needed compared with routine pregnancy care, using patient-level data from a multi-centre randomised clinical trial.
Women with a singleton pregnancy who had mild gestational diabetes diagnosed by an oral glucose-tolerance test between 24 and 34 weeks' gestation and their infants were included. Clinical outcomes and outpatient costs derived from all women and infants in the trial. Inpatient costs derived from women and infants attending the hospital contributing the largest number of enrolments (26.1%), and charges to women and their families derived from a subsample of participants from that hospital (in 2002 Australian dollars). Occasions of service and health outcomes were adjusted for maternal age, ethnicity and parity. Analysis of variance was used with bootstrapping to confirm results. Primary clinical outcomes were serious perinatal complications; admission to neonatal nursery; jaundice requiring phototherapy; induction of labour and caesarean delivery. Economic outcome measures were outpatient and inpatient costs, and charges to women and their families.
For every 100 women with a singleton pregnancy and positive oral glucose tolerance test who were offered treatment for mild gestational diabetes mellitus in addition to routine obstetric care, $53,985 additional direct costs were incurred at the obstetric hospital, $6,521 additional charges were incurred by women and their families, 9.7 additional women experienced induction of labour, and 8.6 more babies were admitted to a neonatal nursery. However, 2.2 fewer babies experienced serious perinatal complication and 1.0 fewer babies experienced perinatal death. The incremental cost per additional serious perinatal complication prevented was $27,503, per perinatal death prevented was $60,506 and per discounted life-year gained was $2,988.
It is likely that the general public in high-income countries such as Australia would find reductions in perinatal mortality and in serious perinatal complications sufficient to justify additional health service and personal monetary charges. Over the whole lifespan, the incremental cost per extra life-year gained is highly favourable.
Trial Registration
Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12606000294550
PMCID: PMC2241640  PMID: 17963528

Results 1-10 (10)