Background

Growing attention is given to the effects of health promotion programs targeting physical activity and healthy eating in individuals with mental disorders. The design of evaluation studies of public health interventions poses several problems and the current literature appears to provide only limited evidence on the effectiveness of such programs. The aim of the study is to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a health promotion intervention targeting physical activity and healthy eating in individuals with mental disorders living in sheltered housing. In this paper, the design of the study and baseline findings are described.

Methods/design

The design consists of a cluster preference randomized controlled trial. All sheltered housing organisations in the Flanders region (Belgium) were asked if they were interested to participate in the study and if they were having a preference to serve as intervention or control group. Those without a preference were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Individuals in the intervention group receive a 10-week health promotion intervention above their treatment as usual. Outcome assessments occur at baseline, at 10 and at 36 weeks. The primary outcomes include body weight, Body Mass Index, waist circumference, and fat mass. Secondary outcomes consist of physical activity levels, eating habits, health-related quality of life and psychiatric symptom severity. Cost-effectiveness of the intervention will be examined by calculating the Cost-Effectiveness ratio and through economic modeling.Twenty-five sheltered housing organisations agreed to participate. On the individual level 324 patients were willing to participate, including 225 individuals in the intervention group and 99 individuals in the control group. At baseline, no statistical significant differences between the two groups were found for the primary outcome variables.

Discussion

This is the first trial evaluating both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a health promotion intervention targeting physical activity and healthy eating in mental health care using a cluster preference randomized controlled design. The baseline characteristics already demonstrate the unhealthy condition of the study population.

Trial registration

This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov – NCT 01336946

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication after acute ischemic stroke that can be prevented by the use of anticoagulants. Current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians recommend that patients with acute ischemic stroke and restricted mobility receive prophylactic low-dose unfractionated heparin or a low-molecular-weight heparin. Results from clinical studies, most recently from PREVAIL (PREvention of Venous Thromboembolism After Acute Ischemic Stroke with LMWH and unfractionated heparin), suggest that the low-molecular-weight heparin, enoxaparin, is preferable to unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis in patients with acute ischemic stroke and restricted mobility. This is due to a better clinical benefit-to-risk ratio, with the added convenience of once-daily administration. In line with findings from modeling studies and real-world data in acutely ill medical patients, recent economic data indicate that the higher drug cost of enoxaparin is offset by the reduction in clinical events as compared with the use of unfractionated heparin for the prevention of VTE after acute ischemic stroke, particularly in patients with severe stroke. With national performance measures highlighting the need for hospitals to examine their VTE practices, the relative costs of different regimens are of particular importance to health care decision-makers. The data reviewed here suggest that preferential use of enoxaparin over unfractionated heparin for the prevention of VTE after acute ischemic stroke may lead to reduced VTE rates and concomitant cost savings in clinical practice.

Background/aims

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab as either monotherapy or combined with laser therapy, compared with laser monotherapy, in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME) causing visual impairment from a UK healthcare payer perspective.

Methods

A Markov model simulated long-term outcomes and costs of treating DME in one eye (BCVA ≤75 letters) based on data from the RESTORE Phase III trial. Outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were simulated for a 15-year time horizon based on 12-month follow-up from RESTORE and published long-term data. Costs included treatment, disease monitoring, visual impairment and blindness (at 2010 price levels).

Results

Ranibizumab monotherapy resulted in a 0.17 QALY gain at an incremental cost of £4191 relative to laser monotherapy, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £24 028. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 64% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY. Combined ranibizumab and laser therapy resulted in a 0.13 QALY gain at an incremental cost of £4695 relative to laser monotherapy (ICER £36 106; 42% probability of ICER <£30 000).

Conclusions

Based on RESTORE 1-year follow-up data, ranibizumab monotherapy appears to be cost-effective relative to laser monotherapy, the current standard of care. Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy is less certain. Ongoing studies will further inform on disease progression and the need for additional ranibizumab treatment.

This Perspective describes (a) the current situation, (b) challenges and initiatives, (c) and formulates recommendations to valorize and create access to innovative medicines in the EU. We are currently still far away from optimal assessment of value for money in the EU. On the one hand, valorizing innovative medicines involves a local appraisal by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and competent authorities about the value for money, the budget impact, and the local medical need that can be filled with new medicines. Therefore, local priorities and national health care policy environments should be reflected in the processes and criteria used for assessing value for money and ultimately for reimbursement decisions. On the other hand, a pan-European assessment of both relative effectiveness and medical need (including general ethical and social considerations) should be envisaged in order to feed part of the data needed for the local decisions in an efficient way. This could be the task of the European Medicines Agency, HTA bodies, and competent authorities together.

Background

Pay-for-performance systems raise concerns regarding inequity in health care because providers might select patients for whom targets can easily be reached. This paper aims to describe the evolution of pre-existing (in)equity in health care in the period after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in the UK and to describe (in)equities in exception reporting. In this evaluation, a theory-based framework conceptualising equity in terms of equal access, equal treatment and equal treatment outcomes for people in equal need is used to guide the work.

Methods

A systematic MEDLINE and Econlit search identified 317 studies. Of these, 290 were excluded because they were not related to the evaluation of QOF, they lacked an equity dimension in the evaluation, their qualitative research focused on experiences or on the nature of the consultation, or unsuitable methodology was used to pronounce upon equity after the introduction of QOF.

Results

None of the publications (n = 27) assessed equity in access to health care. Concerning equity in treatment and (intermediate) treatment outcomes, overall quality scores generally improved. For the majority of the observed indicators, all citizens benefit from this improvement, yet the extent to which different patient groups benefit tends to vary and to be highly dependent on the type and complexity of the indicator(s) under study, the observed patient group(s) and the characteristics of the study. In general, the introduction of QOF was favourable for the aged and for males. Total QOF scores did not seem to vary according to ethnicity. For deprivation, small but significant residual differences were observed after the introduction of QOF favouring less deprived groups. These differences are mainly due to differences at the practice level. The variance in exception reporting according to gender and socio-economic position is low.

Conclusions

Although QOF seems not to be socially selective at first glance, this does not mean QOF does not contribute to the inverse care law. Introducing different targets for specific patient groups and including appropriate, non-disease specific and patient-centred indicators that grasp the complexity of primary care might refine the equity dimension of the evaluation of QOF. Also, information on the actual uptake of care, information at the patient level and monitoring of individuals' health care utilisation tracks could make large contributions to an in-depth evaluation. Finally, evaluating pay-for-quality initiatives in a broader health systems impact assessment strategy with equity as a full assessment criterion is of utmost importance.

Background

There is a high prevalence of overweight and obesity in persons with severe mental disorders and this has serious implications on the short and long term health outcomes of these patients. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions targeting physical activity and eating habits in persons with severe mental disorders. Special attention was given if any of the included studies in the review also examined the cost-effectiveness of these health promotion interventions.

Methods

A systematic search through the electronic databases Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cohrane Library was conducted, and by hand-searching the reference lists of the retrieved articles from the electronic databases. Studies were included if they examined effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of lifestyle interventions targeting physical activity and eating habits in persons with severe mental disorders, with primary outcome changes in Body Mass Index and body weight.

Results

Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Weight loss and Body Mass Index decrease were observed in intervention groups in 11 studies. The difference in weight change between intervention and control groups was statistically significant in nine studies. Differences in mean Body Mass Index between intervention and control groups were statistically significant in eight studies. Five studies reported improvements in quality of life and general health. In none of the studies cost-effectiveness of lifestyle interventions was examined.

Conclusion

Further research on both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle interventions targeting physical activity and eating habits in persons with severe mental disorders is required to assist in the development of new health promotion interventions in this population.

Background

Alignment between physicians and hospitals is of major importance to the health care sector. Two distinct approaches to align the medical staff with the hospital have characterized previous research. The first approach, economic integration, is rooted in the economic literature, in which alignment is realized by financial means. The second approach, noneconomic integration, represents a sociological perspective emphasizing the cooperative nature of their relationship.

Discussion

Empirical studies and management theory (agency theory and social exchange theory) are used to increase holistic understanding of physician hospital alignment. On the one hand, noneconomic integration is identified as a means to realize a cooperative relationship. On the other hand, economic integration is studied as a way to align financial incentives. The framework is developed around two key antecedent factors which play an important role in aligning the medical staff. First, provider financial risk bearing is identified as a driving force towards closer integration. Second, organizational trust is believed to be important in explaining the causal relation between noneconomic and economic integration.

Summary

Hospital financial risk bearing creates a greater need for closer cooperation with the medical staff and alignment of financial incentives. Noneconomic integration lies at the very basis of alignment. It contributes directly to alignment through the norm of reciprocity and indirectly by building trust with the medical staff, laying the foundation for alignment of financial incentives.

Background

Pay-for-performance (P4P) is one of the primary tools used to support healthcare delivery reform. Substantial heterogeneity exists in the development and implementation of P4P in health care and its effects. This paper summarizes evidence, obtained from studies published between January 1990 and July 2009, concerning P4P effects, as well as evidence on the impact of design choices and contextual mediators on these effects. Effect domains include clinical effectiveness, access and equity, coordination and continuity, patient-centeredness, and cost-effectiveness.

Methods

The systematic review made use of electronic database searching, reference screening, forward citation tracking and expert consultation. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, EconLit, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. Studies that evaluate P4P effects in primary care or acute hospital care medicine were included. Papers concerning other target groups or settings, having no empirical evaluation design or not complying with the P4P definition were excluded. According to study design nine validated quality appraisal tools and reporting statements were applied. Data were extracted and summarized into evidence tables independently by two reviewers.

Results

One hundred twenty-eight evaluation studies provide a large body of evidence -to be interpreted with caution- concerning the effects of P4P on clinical effectiveness and equity of care. However, less evidence on the impact on coordination, continuity, patient-centeredness and cost-effectiveness was found. P4P effects can be judged to be encouraging or disappointing, depending on the primary mission of the P4P program: supporting minimal quality standards and/or boosting quality improvement. Moreover, the effects of P4P interventions varied according to design choices and characteristics of the context in which it was introduced.

Future P4P programs should (1) select and define P4P targets on the basis of baseline room for improvement, (2) make use of process and (intermediary) outcome indicators as target measures, (3) involve stakeholders and communicate information about the programs thoroughly and directly, (4) implement a uniform P4P design across payers, (5) focus on both quality improvement and achievement, and (6) distribute incentives to the individual and/or team level.

Conclusions

P4P programs result in the full spectrum of possible effects for specific targets, from absent or negligible to strongly beneficial. Based on the evidence the review has provided further indications on how effect findings are likely to relate to P4P design choices and context. The provided best practice hypotheses should be tested in future research.