<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.resource-allocation.com/feeds/latestarticles/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation - Latest Articles</title>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com</link>
        <description>The latest research articles published by Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</description>
        <dc:date>2012-02-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/10/1/1" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/18" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/17" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/16" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/15" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/14" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/13" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/12" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/11" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/10" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
                 <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/10/1/1">
        <title>Methodologies used in cost-effectiveness models for evaluating treatments in major depressive disorder: a systematic review</title>
        <description>Background:
Decision makers in many jurisdictions use cost-effectiveness estimates as an aid for selecting interventions with an appropriate balance between health benefits and costs. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of published cost-effectiveness models in major depressive disorder (MDD) with a focus on the methods employed. Key components of the identified models are discussed and any challenges in developing models are highlighted.
Methods:
A systematic literature search was performed to identify all primary model-based economic evaluations of MDD interventions indexed in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EconLit, and PsycINFO between January 2000 and May 2010.
Results:
A total of 37 studies were included in the review. These studies predominantly evaluated antidepressant medications. The analyses were performed across a broad set of countries. The majority of models were decision-trees; eight were Markov models. Most models had a time horizon of less than 1 year. The majority of analyses took a payer perspective. Clinical input data were obtained from pooled placebo-controlled comparative trials, single head-to-head trials, or meta-analyses. The majority of studies (24 of 37) used treatment success or symptom-free days as main outcomes, 14 studies incorporated health state utilities, and 2 used disability-adjusted life-years. A few models (14 of 37) incorporated probabilities and costs associated with suicide and/or suicide attempts. Two models examined the cost-effectiveness of second-line treatment in patients who had failed to respond to initial therapy. Resource use data used in the models were obtained mostly from expert opinion. All studies, with the exception of one, explored parameter uncertainty.
Conclusions:
The review identified several model input data gaps, including utility values in partial responders, efficacy of second-line treatments, and resource utilisation estimates obtained from relevant, high-quality studies. It highlighted the differences in outcome measures among the trials of MDD interventions, which can lead to difficulty in performing indirect comparisons, and the inconsistencies in definitions of health states used in the clinical trials and those used in utility studies. Clinical outcomes contributed to the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates to a greater degree than costs or utility weights.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/10/1/1</link>
                <dc:creator>Evelina Zimovetz</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sorrel Wolowacz</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Peter Classi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Julie Birt</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2012, null:1</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-02-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-10-1</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1478-7547-10-1-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-02-01T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/18">
        <title>Case management to improve adherence for HIV-infected patients receiving antiretroviral therapy in Ethiopia: A micro-costing study</title>
        <description>Background:
Adherence to antiretroviral medication regimens is essential to good clinical outcomes for HIV-infected patients. Little is known about the costs of case management (CM) designed to improve adherence for patients identified as being at risk for poor adherence in resource-constrained settings. This study analyzed the costs, outputs, unit costs and correlates of unit cost variation for CM services in 14 ART sites in Ethiopia from October 2008 through September 2009.
Methods:
This study applied standard micro-costing methods to identify the incremental costs of the CM program. We divided total CM-attributable costs by three output measures (patient-quarters of CM services delivered, number of patients served and successful patient exits) to derive three separate indices of unit costs. The relationships between unit costs and two operational factors (scale and service-volume to staff ratios) were quantified through bivariate analyses.
Results:
The CM program delivered 4,598 patient-quarters of services, serving 5,056 patients and 1,995 successful exits at a cost of $167,457 over 12 months, or $36 per patient-quarter, $33 per patient served and $84 per successful exit from the CM program. Among the 14 sites, mean costs were $11,961 (sd, $3,965) for the 12-month study period, and $51 (sd, $36) per patient-quarter; $48 (sd, $32) per patient served; and $183 (sd, $157) per successful exit. Unit costs varied inversely with scale (r, -0.70 for cost per patient-quarter versus patient-quarters of service) and with the service-volume to staff ratio (r, -0.68 for cost per patient-quarter versus staff per patient-quarter).
Conclusions:
For those receiving CM, the program adds 0.52% to the lifetime cost of ART. These data reflect wide variation in unit costs among the study sites and suggest that high patient volume may be a major determinant of CM program efficiency. The observed variations in unit costs also indicate that there may be opportunities to identify staffing patterns that increase overall program efficiency.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/18</link>
                <dc:creator>Elliot Marseille</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sebastian Kevany</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ismael Ahmed</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Getachew Feleke</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bill Graham</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Thomas Heller</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>James Kahn</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Michael Reyes</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011, null:18</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-12-20T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-9-18</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1478-7547-9-18-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>18</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-12-20T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/17">
        <title>Estimating the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention programmes to prevent diabetes based on an example from Germany: Markov modelling</title>
        <description>Background:
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) poses a large worldwide burden for health care systems. One possible tool to decrease this burden is primary prevention. As it is unethical to wait until perfect data are available to conclude whether T2D primary prevention intervention programmes are cost-effective, we need a model that simulates the effect of prevention initiatives. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate the long-term cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention programmes for the prevention of T2D using a Markov model. As decision makers often face difficulties in applying health economic results, we visualise our results with health economic tools.
Methods:
We use four-state Markov modelling with a probabilistic cohort analysis to calculate the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A one-year cycle length and a lifetime time horizon are applied. Best available evidence supplies the model with data on transition probabilities between glycaemic states, mortality risks, utility weights, and disease costs. The costs are calculated from a societal perspective. A 3% discount rate is used for costs and QALYs. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves are presented to assist decision makers.
Results:
The model indicates that diabetes prevention interventions have the potential to be cost-effective, but the outcome reveals a high level of uncertainty. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were negative for the intervention, ie, the intervention leads to a cost reduction for men and women aged 30 or 50 years at initiation of the intervention. For men and women aged 70 at initiation of the intervention, the ICER was EUR27,546/QALY gained and EUR19,433/QALY gained, respectively. In all cases, the QALYs gained were low. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves show that the higher the willingness-to-pay threshold value, the higher the probability that the intervention is cost-effective. Nonetheless, all curves are flat. The threshold value of EUR50,000/QALY gained has a 30-55% probability that the intervention is cost-effective.
Conclusions:
Lifestyle interventions for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes are cost-saving for men and women aged 30 or 50 years at the start of the intervention, and cost-effective for men and women aged 70 years. However, there is a high degree of uncertainty around the ICERs. With the conservative approach adopted for this model, the long-term effectiveness of the intervention could be underestimated.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/17</link>
                <dc:creator>Anne Neumann</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Peter Schwarz</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lars Lindholm</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011, null:17</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-11-18T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-9-17</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1478-7547-9-17-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>17</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-11-18T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/16">
        <title>Correction: The EVIDEM framework and its usefulness for priority setting across a broad range of health interventions.</title>
        <description>After the publication of this article [Youngkong,Tromp, and Chitama; Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 2011. 9:8], we became aware that two last sentences in the paragraph relied on original ideas following personal communication with a researcher, and should not have been presented here. Consequently, the reference number 9 which was cited for the removed issue should be taken from the article. The correct paragraph is provided below:</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/16</link>
                <dc:creator>Sitaporn Youngkong</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Noor Tromp</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Dereck Chitama</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011, null:16</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-10-26T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-9-16</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1478-7547-9-16-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>16</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-10-26T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/15">
        <title>Health economic evaluations comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes: 
a systematic review
</title>
        <description>Background:
Compared to conventional human basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn; NPH) the long-acting analogue insulin glargine (GLA) is associated with a number of advantages regarding metabolic control, hypoglycaemic events and convenience. However, the unit costs of GLA exceed those of NPH. This study aims to systematically review the economic evidence comparing GLA with NPH in basal-bolus treatment (intensified conventional therapy; ICT) of type 1 diabetes in order to facilitate informed decision making in clinical practice and health policy.
Methods:
A systematic literature search was performed for the period of January 1st 2000 to December 1st 2009 via Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Library, the databases GMS (German Medical Science) and DAHTA (Deutsche Agentur f&#252;r Health Technology Assessment), and the abstract books of relevant international scientific congresses. Retrieved studies were reviewed based on predefined inclusion criteria, methodological and quality aspects. In order to allow comparison between studies, currencies were converted using purchasing power parities (PPP).
Results:
A total of 7 health economic evaluations from 4 different countries fulfilled the predefined criteria: 6 modelling studies, all of them cost-utility analyses, and one claims data analysis with a cost-minimisation design. One cost-utility analysis showed dominance of GLA over NPH. The other 5 cost-utility analyses resulted in additional costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for GLA, ranging from &#8364; 3,859 to &#8364; 57,002 (incremental cost effectiveness ratio; ICER). The cost-minimisation analysis revealed lower annual diabetes-specific costs in favour of NPH from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI).
Conclusions:
The incremental cost-utility-ratios (ICER) show favourable values for GLA with considerable variation. If a willingness-to-pay threshold of &#163; 30,000 (National Institute of Clinical Excellence, UK) is adopted, GLA is cost-effective in 4 of 6 cost utility analyses (CUA) included. Thus insulin glargine (GLA) seems to offer good value for money. Comparability between studies is limited because of methodological and country specific aspects. The results of this review underline that evaluation of insulin therapy should use evidence on efficacy of therapy from information synthesis. The concept of relating utility decrements to fear of hypoglycaemia is a plausible approach but needs further investigation. Also future evaluations of basal-bolus insulin therapy should include costs of consumables such as needles for insulin injection as well as test strips and lancets for blood glucose self monitoring.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/15</link>
                <dc:creator>Ernst-Gunther Hagenmeyer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Katharina Koltermann</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Franz-Werner Dippel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Peter Schadlich</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011, null:15</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-10-06T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-9-15</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1478-7547-9-15-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>15</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-10-06T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/14">
        <title>Targeted versus universal prevention. a resource allocation model to prioritize cardiovascular prevention</title>
        <description>Background:
Diabetes mellitus brings an increased risk for cardiovascular complications and patients profit from prevention. This prevention also suits the general population. The question arises what is a better strategy: target the general population or diabetes patients.
Methods:
A mathematical programming model was developed to calculate optimal allocations for the Dutch population of the following interventions: smoking cessation support, diet and exercise to reduce overweight, statins, and medication to reduce blood pressure. Outcomes were total lifetime health care costs and QALYs. Budget sizes were varied and the division of resources between the general population and diabetes patients was assessed.
Results:
Full implementation of all interventions resulted in a gain of 560,000 QALY at a cost of &#8364;640 per capita, about &#8364;12,900 per QALY on average. The large majority of these QALY gains could be obtained at incremental costs below &#8364;20,000 per QALY. Low or high budgets (below &#8364;9 or above &#8364;100 per capita) were predominantly spent in the general population. Moderate budgets were mostly spent in diabetes patients.
Conclusions:
Major health gains can be realized efficiently by offering prevention to both the general and the diabetic population. However, a priori setting a specific distribution of resources is suboptimal. Resource allocation models allow accounting for capacity constraints and program size in addition to efficiency.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/14</link>
                <dc:creator>Talitha Feenstra</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Pieter van Baal</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Monique Jacobs-van der Bruggen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rudolf Hoogenveen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Geert-Jan Kommer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Caroline Baan</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011, null:14</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-10-06T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-9-14</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1478-7547-9-14-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>14</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-10-06T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/13">
        <title>Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Intensive Insulin Therapy for Type 1 Diabetes</title>
        <description>Background:
Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) technology with intensive insulin therapy compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in adults with type 1 diabetes in the United States.
Methods:
A Markov cohort analysis was used to model the long-term disease progression of 12 different diabetes disease states, using a cycle length of 1 year with a 33-year time horizon. The analysis uses a societal perspective to model a population with a 20-year history of diabetes with mean age of 40. Costs are expressed in $US 2007, effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Parameter estimates and their ranges were derived from the literature. Utility estimates were drawn from the EQ-5D catalogue. Probabilities were derived from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), and the Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% per year. Univariate and Multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations.
Results:
Compared to SMBG, use of CGM with intensive insulin treatment resulted in an expected improvement in effectiveness of 0.52 QALYs, and an expected increase in cost of $23,552, resulting in an ICER of approximately $45,033/QALY. For a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY, CGM with intensive insulin therapy was cost-effective in 70% of the Monte Carlo simulations.
Conclusions:
CGM with intensive insulin therapy appears to be cost-effective relative to SMBG and other societal health interventions.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/13</link>
                <dc:creator>R. Brett McQueen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Samuel Ellis</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jonathan Campbell</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kavita Nair</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Patrick Sullivan</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011, null:13</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-09-14T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-9-13</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1478-7547-9-13-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>13</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-09-14T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/12">
        <title>A systematic review of economic evaluations of health and health-related interventions in Bangladesh </title>
        <description>Background:
Economic evaluation is used for effective resource allocation in health sector. Accumulated knowledge about economic evaluation of health programs in Bangladesh is not currently available. While a number of economic evaluation studies have been performed in Bangladesh, no systematic investigation of the studies has been done to our knowledge. The aim of this current study is to systematically review the published articles in peer-reviewed journals on economic evaluation of health and health-related interventions in Bangladesh.
Methods:
Literature searches was carried out during November-December 2008 with a combination of key words, MeSH terms and other free text terms as suitable for the purpose. A comprehensive search strategy was developed to search Medline by the PubMed interface. The first specific interest was mapping the articles considering the areas of exploration by economic evaluation and the second interest was to scrutiny the methodological quality of studies. The methodological quality of economic evaluation of all articles has been scrutinized against the checklist developed by Evers Silvia and associates.ResultOf 1784 potential articles 12 were accepted for inclusion. Ten studies described the competing alternatives clearly and only two articles stated the perspective of their articles clearly. All studies included direct cost, incurred by the providers. Only one study included the cost of community donated resources and volunteer costs. Two studies calculated the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). Six of the studies applied some sort of sensitivity analysis. Two of the studies discussed financial affordability of expected implementers and four studies discussed the issue of generalizability for application in different context.
Conclusion:
Very few economic evaluation studies in Bangladesh are found in different areas of health and health-related interventions, which does not provide a strong basis of knowledge in the area. The most frequently applied economic evaluation is cost-effectiveness analysis. The majority of the studies did not follow the scientific method of economic evaluation process, which consequently resulted into lack of robustness of the analyses. Capacity building on economic evaluation of health and health-related programs should be enhanced.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/12</link>
                <dc:creator>Mohammad Hoque</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jahangir Khan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Shahed Hossain</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rukhsana Gazi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Harun-ar Rashid</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tracey Koehlmoos</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Damian Walker</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011, null:12</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-07-20T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-9-12</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1478-7547-9-12-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>12</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-07-20T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/11">
        <title>Cost of individual peer counselling for the promotion of exclusive breastfeeding in Uganda</title>
        <description>Background:
Exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) for 6 months is the recommended form of infant feeding. Support of mothers through individual peer counselling has been proved to be effective in increasing exclusive breastfeeding prevalence. We present a costing study of an individual peer support intervention in Uganda, whose objective was to raise exclusive breastfeeding rates at 3 months of age.
Methods:
We costed the peer support intervention, which was offered to 406 breastfeeding mothers in Uganda. The average number of counselling visits was about 6 per woman. Annual financial and economic costs were collected in 2005-2008. Estimates were made of total project costs, average costs per mother counselled and average costs per peer counselling visit. Alternative intervention packages were explored in the sensitivity analysis. We also estimated the resources required to fund the scale up to district level, of a breastfeeding intervention programme within a public health sector model.
Results:
Annual project costs were estimated to be US$56,308. The largest cost component was peer supporter supervision, which accounted for over 50% of total project costs. The cost per mother counselled was US$139 and the cost per visit was US$26. The cost per week of EBF was estimated to be US$15 at 12 weeks post partum. We estimated that implementing an alternative package modelled on routine public health sector programmes can potentially reduce costs by over 60%. Based on the calculated average costs and annual births, scaling up modelled costs to district level would cost the public sector an additional US$1,813,000.
Conclusion:
Exclusive breastfeeding promotion in sub-Saharan Africa is feasible and can be implemented at a sustainable cost. The results of this study can be incorporated in cost effectiveness analyses of exclusive breastfeeding promotion programmes in sub-Saharan Africa.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/11</link>
                <dc:creator>Lumbwe Chola</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lungiswa Nkonki</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Chipepo Kankasa</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jolly Nankunda</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>James Tumwine</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Thorkild Tylleskar</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bjarne Robberstad</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>The Study Group Promise-ebf</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011, null:11</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-06-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-9-11</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1478-7547-9-11-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>11</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-06-29T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/10">
        <title>Insomnia - treatment pathways, costs and quality of life </title>
        <description>Background:
Insomnia is perhaps the most common sleep disorder in the general population, and is characterised by a range of complaints around difficulties in initiating and maintaining sleep, together with impaired waking function. There is little quantitative information on treatment pathways, costs and outcomes. The aims of this New Zealand study were to determine from which healthcare practitioners patients with insomnia sought treatment, treatment pathways followed, the net costs of treatment and the quality of life improvements obtained.
Methods:
The study was retrospective and prevalence based, and was both cost effectiveness (CEA) and a cost utility (CUA) analysis. Micro costing techniques were used and a societal analytic perspective was adopted. A deterministic decision tree model was used to estimate base case values, and a stochastic version, with Monte Carlo simulation, was used to perform sensitivity analysis. A probability and cost were attached to each event which enabled the costs for the treatment pathways and average treatment cost to be calculated. The inputs to the model were prevalence, event probabilities, resource utilisations, and unit costs. Direct costs and QALYs gained were evaluated.
Results:
The total net benefit of treating a person with insomnia was $482 (the total base case cost of $145 less health costs avoided of $628). When these results were applied to the total at-risk population in New Zealand additional treatment costs incurred were $6.6 million, costs avoided $28.4 million and net benefits were $21.8 million. The incremental net benefit when insomnia was &quot;successfully&quot; treated was $3,072 per QALY gained.
Conclusions:
The study has brought to light a number of problems relating to the treatment of insomnia in New Zealand. There is both inadequate access to publicly funded treatment and insufficient publicly available information from which a consumer is able to make an informed decision on the treatment and provider options. This study suggests that successful treatment of insomnia leads to direct cost savings and improved quality of life.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/10</link>
                <dc:creator>Guy Scott</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Helen Scott</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Karyn O'Keeffe</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Philippa Gander</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011, null:10</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-06-21T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-9-10</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1478-7547-9-10-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>10</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-06-21T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>

