<?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>2009-12-11T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/20" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/19" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/18" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/17" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/16" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/15" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/14" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/13" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/12" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/11" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
        <extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
            <html:div style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <html:span style="font-weight:bold">
                    This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central
                </html:span>
                <html:br />
                <html:span style="font-size: 12px;">
                    It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit
                    <html:br />
                    <html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">
                        http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/
                    </html:a>
                    <html:br />
                </html:span>
            </html:div>
        </extra:info>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/20">
        <title>Cost-utility analysis of infliximab and adalimumab for refractory ulcerative colitis</title>
        <description>ObjectiveTo evaluate cost-utility of infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) refractory to conventional therapies in Canada.
Methods:
A Markov model was constructed to evaluate incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg infliximab and adalimumab therapies compared to &apos;usual care&apos; in treating a hypothetical cohort of patients (aged 40 years and weighing 80 kg) over a five-year time horizon from the perspective of a publicly-funded health care system. Clinical parameters were derived from the Active Ulcerative Colitis Trials 1 and 2. Costs were obtained through provincial drug benefit plans. ICUR was the main outcome measure and both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.
Results:
Compared to the strategy A (&apos;usual care&apos;) in the base case analysis, the ICURs were CA$358,088/QALY for the strategy B (&apos;5 mg/kg infliximab + adalimumab&apos;) and CA$575,540/QALY for the strategy C (&apos;5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg infliximab + adalimumab&apos;). The results were sensitive to: the remission rates maintained in responders to &apos;usual care&apos; and to 5 mg/kg infliximab, the rate of remission induced by adalimumab in non-responders to 5 mg/kg infliximab, early surgery rate, and utility values. When the willingness to pay (WTP) was less than CA$150,000/QALY, the probability of &apos;usual care&apos; being the optimal strategy was 1.0. The probability of strategy B being optimal was 0.5 when the WTP approximated CA$400,000/QALY.
Conclusions:
The ICURs of anti-TNF-&#945; drugs were not satisfactory in treating patients with moderate-to-severe refractory UC. Future research could be aimed at the long-term clinical benefits of these drugs, especially adalimumab for patients intolerant or unresponsive to infliximab treatment.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/20</link>
                <dc:creator>Feng Xie</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gord Blackhouse</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Nazila Assai</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kathryn Gaebel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Diana Robertson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ron Goeree</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2009, 7:20</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-11T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-20</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>20</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-11T00:00:00Z</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/7/1/19">
        <title>The costs of a sexually transmitted infection outreach and treatment programme targeting most at risk youth in Tajikistan</title>
        <description>Background:
Targeted outreach, counselling, and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are among the most cost-effective interventions aimed at ameliorating the burden of HIV/STIs. Since many new HIV infections occur in people under the age of 25, youth, and especially most at risk adolescents (MARA), need to be able to access HIV/STI services. Starting in 2006, a programme targeting MARA including outreach, confidential and voluntary counselling and testing, and STI diagnosis and treatment was piloted in three cities in Tajikistan. This study uses data from these pilot sites to estimate the costs of a national programme.
Methods:
Cost data were collected from the three pilot sites. Then, the target population and the number of patients receiving specific types of services are calculated for other areas. The unit costs from the pilot sites are multiplied by usage rates to determine the total costs of a national programme. Scenarios were developed to reflect data uncertainty. The government&apos;s ability to finance the programme was estimated using Ministry of Health budget data. Further analyses were done for one of the pilot cities where more detailed data were available.
Results:
In total, costs were projected for eight programme sites, covering an estimated 8,020 MARA. Operational and variable cost for the programme are projected to be US$ 119,159 (range US$ 104,953 to 151,524) per year. Including annual equivalent cost for capital and start-up items raises this to US$ 137,082 (range: US$ 123,022 to 169,597) per year. The analyses of potential sources of financing for the programme remain inconclusive, but it may take multiple sources of financing to fund the programme.
Conclusion:
While the cost-effectiveness of similar programmes have been previously assessed using modelled data, more work needs to be done to assess the costs of new programmes in relation to financial resources available. Full costing should consider cost-savings as well as expenditures. If feasible, the impact of the programme should be monitored over time.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/19</link>
                <dc:creator>Nisso Kasymova</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Benjamin Johns</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Benusrat Sharipova</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2009, 7:19</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-03T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-19</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>19</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-03T00:00:00Z</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/7/1/18">
        <title>Can economic evaluation of telemedicine be trusted? A systematic review of the literature </title>
        <description>Background:
Telemedicine has been advocated as an effective means to provide health care services over a distance. Systematic information on costs and consequences has been called for to support decision-making in this field. This paper provides a review of the quality, validity and generalisability of economic evaluations in telemedicine.
Methods:
A systematic literature search in all relevant databases was conducted and forms the basis for addressing these issues. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals and written in English in the period from 1990 to 2007 were analysed. The literature search identified 33 economic evaluations where both costs (resource use) and outcomes (non-resource consequences) were measured.
Results:
This review shows that economic evaluations in telemedicine are highly diverse in terms of both the study context and the methods applied. The articles covered several medical specialities ranging from cardiology and dermatology to psychiatry. The studies analysed telemedicine in home care, and in primary and secondary care settings using a variety of different technologies including videoconferencing, still-images and monitoring (store-and-forward telemedicine). Most studies used multiple outcome measures and analysed the effects using disaggregated cost-consequence frameworks. Objectives, study design, and choice of comparators were mostly well reported. The majority of the studies lacked information on perspective and costing method, few used general statistics and sensitivity analysis to assess validity, and even fewer used marginal analysis.
Conclusion:
As this paper demonstrates, the majority of the economic evaluations reviewed were not in accordance with standard evaluation techniques. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for this and to address how economic evaluation in telemedicine best can take advantage of local constraints and at the same time produce valid and generalisable results.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/18</link>
                <dc:creator>Trine Bergmo</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2009, 7:18</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-10-24T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-18</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>18</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-10-24T00:00:00Z</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/7/1/17">
        <title>Medical net cost of low alcohol consumption - a cause to reconsider improved health as the link between alcohol and wage?</title>
        <description>Background:
Studies have found a positive effect of low/moderate alcohol consumption on wages. This has often been explained by referring to epidemiological research showing that alcohol has protective effects on certain diseases, i.e., the health link is normally justified using selected epidemiological information. Few papers have tested this link between alcohol and health explicitly, including all diseases where alcohol has been shown to have either a protective or a detrimental effect.AimBased on the full epidemiological information, we study the effect of low alcohol consumption on health, in order to determine if it is reasonable to explain the positive effect of low consumption on wages using the epidemiological literature.
Methods:
We apply a non-econometrical cost-of-illness approach to calculate the medical care cost and episodes attributable to low alcohol consumption.
Results:
Low alcohol consumption carries a net cost for medical care and there is a net benefit only for the oldest age group (80+). Low alcohol consumption also causes more episodes in medical care then what is saved, although inpatient care for women and older men show savings.
Conclusion:
Using health as an explanation in the alcohol-wage literature appears invalid when applying the full epidemiological information instead of selected information.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/17</link>
                <dc:creator>Johan Jarl</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ulf-G Gerdtham</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Klara Hradilova Selin</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2009, 7:17</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-10-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-17</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>17</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-10-23T00:00:00Z</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/7/1/16">
        <title>Estimating average inpatient and outpatient costs and childhood pneumonia and diarrhoea treatment costs in an urban health centre in Zambia</title>
        <description>Background:
Millions of children die every year in developing countries, from preventable diseases such as pneumonia and diarrhoea, owing to low levels of investment in child health. Investment efforts are hampered by a general lack of adequate information that is necessary for priority setting in this sector. This paper measures the health system costs of providing inpatient and outpatient services, and also the costs associated with treating pneumonia and diarrhoea in under-five children at a health centre in Zambia.
Methods:
Annual economic and financial cost data were collected in 2005-2006. Data were summarized in a Microsoft excel spreadsheet to obtain total department costs and average disease treatment costs.
Results:
The total annual cost of operating the health centre was US$1,731,661 of which US$1 284 306 and US$447,355 were patient care and overhead departments costs, respectively. The average cost of providing out-patient services was US$3 per visit, while the cost of in-patient treatment was US$18 per bed day. The cost of providing dental services was highest at US$20 per visit, and the cost of VCT services was lowest, with US$1 per visit. The cost per out-patient visit for under-five pneumonia was US$48, while the cost per bed day was US$215. The cost per outpatient visit attributed to under-five diarrhoea was US$26, and the cost per bed day was US$78.
Conclusion:
In the face of insufficient data, a cost analysis exercise is a difficult but feasible undertaking. The study findings are useful and applicable in similar settings, and can be used in cost effectiveness analyses of health interventions.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/16</link>
                <dc:creator>Lumbwe Chola</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bjarne Robberstad</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2009, 7:16</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-10-21T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-16</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>16</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-10-21T00:00:00Z</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/7/1/15">
        <title>Multidimensional evaluation of performance: experimental application of the balanced scorecard in Ferrara University Hospital</title>
        <description>Background and AimsOne of the best-known performance planning and evaluation techniques utilising both monetary and non-monetary data is the Balanced Scorecard (BSC). This is a means of rationalising the global activity of a business in the attempt to create value, and to translate the company vision into a set of tactical objectives and measurable strategies. The aim of this study was to implement and evaluate the use of BSC in two departments of the St. Anna University Hospital, Ferrara: the Analysis Laboratory and Digestive Endoscopy operating units (OU).Materials and methodsWith the collaboration of the health workers involved, a precise methodological programme was pursued: Definition of the strategic map from 4 perspectives, according to Kaplan and Norton, Definition of the Key Performance Areas (KPA), or macro-objectives, Identification of the cause-effect relationships between KPAs, Identification of the sub-objectives of each KPA, Definition of the Key Performance Indicators (KPI), Definition of the weight/importance of each objective in the global evaluation.
Results:
The information gathered permitted the definition of macro- and sub-objectives for each perspective, as well as determining the relevant indicators, standards, weights, frequency of detection and means of acquisition. Strategic maps showing the cause/effect relationships in each OU were created, as were &apos;evaluation panels&apos;, which describe the global performance of each department. For each perspective, the fundamental data were summarised in one table. Evaluation of each perspective yielded a positive result for the majority of the objectives, and the global result (including all 4 perspectives) was found to be satisfactory.Discussion-ConclusionThe Balanced Scorecard was implemented in the abovementioned OUs of St. Anna University Hospital, Ferrara, after the health workers themselves realised the need for change.In our research the employees were pleased to be evaluated, not only for the financial outcomes, but also for the satisfaction of improving internal procedure, relationships with the community and their own growth/learning. BSC is an ideal point of contact between the financial and clinical dimensions of management. However, difficulties in its application were faced, among these, at least in the initial phase, the lack of information systems able to drive it, and the complexity of the research for specific indicators needed to be overcome. The time factor (on average, at least two years are required) and the availability of technological resources were also limiting factors.The rapid diffusion of BSC among the principal international profit and non-profit organisations is testament to its great potential. This project could be seen as a preparatory phase in the strategical analysis of a subsequent business plan.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/15</link>
                <dc:creator>Adriano Verzola</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Roberto Bentivegna</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lucio Trevisani</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gianni Carandina</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Pasquale Gregorio</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alberto Mandini</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2009, 7:15</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-09-08T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-15</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>15</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-09-08T00:00:00Z</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/7/1/14">
        <title>Cost-Effectiveness and Resource Allocation (CERA) - directions for the future</title>
        <description>The journal Cost-Effectiveness and Resource Allocation (CERA) is now in its seventh year, and is an excellent example of how open access publishing can improve dissemination. Now the journal is through its infancy, it is time to reflect on its orientation and to define the strategy for the years to come. Firstly, the journal will pay particular attention to stimulating and publishing studies originating from low- and middle-income countries. Second, CERA will continue to solicit contributions originating from high-income countries, but with the caveat that such studies should be of interest to the broad international readership of the journal. Third, the journal encourages submissions on methodological work from any setting, that is generalisable between low-, middle-, and high income countries. Fourth, CERA recognizes the development of national health accounts and expenditure tracking as a first step to improved resource allocation, and solicit manuscripts of this nature. Finally, CERA recognizes that cost and cost-effectiveness analysis alone may not provide sufficient information to decision makers to guide their choices on the allocation of resources, and therefore encourages submission of studies that advance the broader field of priority-setting.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/14</link>
                <dc:creator>Rob Baltussen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Arnab Acharya</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kathryn Antioch</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Dan Chisholm</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Richard Grieve</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Joses Kirigia</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tessa Tan Torres Edejer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Damien Walker</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>David Evans</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2009, 7:14</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-07-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-14</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>14</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-07-23T00:00:00Z</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/7/1/13">
        <title>Cost-effectiveness of anti-retroviral therapy at a district hospital in southern Ethiopia </title>
        <description>Background:
As the resource implications of expanding anti-retroviral therapy (ART) are likely to be large, there is a need to explore its cost-effectiveness. So far, there is no such information available from Ethiopia.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of ART for routine clinical practice in a district hospital setting in Ethiopia.
Methods:
We estimated the unit cost of HIV-related care from the 2004/5 fiscal year expenditure of Arba Minch Hospital in southern Ethiopia. We estimated outpatient and inpatient service use from HIV-infected patients who received care and treatment at the hospital between January 2003 and March 2006. We measured the health effect as life years gained (LYG) for patients receiving ART compared with those not receiving such treatment. The study adopted a health care provider perspective and included both direct and overhead costs. We used Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs, health benefits and cost-effectiveness of ART.FindingsART yielded an undiscounted 9.4 years expected survival, and resulted in 7.1 extra LYG compared to patients not receiving ART. The lifetime incremental cost is US$2,215 and the undiscounted incremental cost per LYG is US$314. When discounted at 3%, the additional LYG decreases to 5.5 years and the incremental cost per LYG increases to US$325.
Conclusion:
The undiscounted and discounted incremental costs per LYG from introducing ART were less than the per capita GDP threshold at the base year. Thus, ART could be regarded as cost-effective in a district hospital setting in Ethiopia.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/13</link>
                <dc:creator>Asfaw Demissie Bikilla</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Degu Jerene</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bjarne Robberstad</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bernt Lindtjorn</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2009, 7:13</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-07-17T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-13</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>13</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-07-17T00:00:00Z</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/7/1/12">
        <title>Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain</title>
        <description>ObjectiveTo assess the practicality, validity and responsiveness of using each of two utility measures (the EQ-5D and SF-6D) to measure the benefits of alleviating knee pain.
Methods:
Participants in a randomised controlled trial, which was designed to compare four different interventions for people with self-reported knee pain, were asked to complete the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at both pre- and post-intervention. For both utility measures, we assessed their practicality (completion rate), construct validity (ability to discriminate between baseline WOMAC severity levels), and responsiveness (ability to discriminate between three groups: those whose total WOMAC score, i) did not improve, ii) improved by &lt;20%, and iii) improved by &#8805;20%).
Results:
The EQ-5D was completed by 97.7% of the 389 participants, compared to 93.3% for the SF-6D. Both the EQ-5D and SF-6D were able to discriminate between participants with different levels of WOMAC severity (p &lt; 0.001). The mean EQ-5D change was -0.036 for group i), 0.091 for group ii), and 0.127 for group iii), compared to 0.021, 0.023 and 0.053 on the SF-6D. These change scores were significantly different according to the EQ-5D (p &lt; 0.001), but not the SF-6D.
Conclusion:
The EQ-5D and SF-6D had largely comparable practicality and construct validity. However, in contrast to the EQ-5D, the SF-6D could not discriminate between those who improved post-intervention, and those who did not. This suggests that it is more appropriate to use the EQ-5D in future cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions which are designed to alleviate knee pain.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN93206785</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/12</link>
                <dc:creator>Garry Barton</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tracey Sach</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anthony Avery</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Michael Doherty</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Claire Jenkinson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kenneth Muir</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2009, 7:12</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-07-17T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-12</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>12</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-07-17T00:00:00Z</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/7/1/11">
        <title>Methodological issues in assessing changes in costs pre- and post-medication switch:  a schizophrenia study example</title>
        <description>Background:
Schizophrenia is a severe, chronic, and costly illness that adversely impacts patients&apos; lives and health care payer budgets. Cost comparisons of treatment regimens are, therefore, important to health care payers and researchers. Pre-Post analyses (&quot;mirror-image&quot;), where outcomes prior to a medication switch are compared to outcomes post-switch, are commonly used in such research. However, medication changes often occur during a costly crisis event. Patients may relapse, be hospitalized, have a medication change, and then spend a period of time with intense use of costly resources (post-medication switch). While many advantages and disadvantages of Pre-Post methodology have been discussed, issues regarding the attributability of costs incurred around the time of medication switching have not been fully investigated.
Methods:
Medical resource use data, including medications and acute-care services (hospitalizations, partial hospitalizations, emergency department) were collected for patients with schizophrenia who switched antipsychotics (n = 105) during a 1-year randomized, naturalistic, antipsychotic cost-effectiveness schizophrenia trial. Within-patient changes in total costs per day were computed during the pre- and post-medication change periods. In addition to the standard Pre-Post analysis comparing costs pre- and post-medication change, we investigated the sensitivity of results to varying assumptions regarding the attributability of acute care service costs occurring just after a medication switch that were likely due to initial medication failure.
Results:
Fifty-six percent of all costs incurred during the first week on the newly initiated antipsychotic were likely due to treatment failure with the previous antipsychotic. Standard analyses suggested an average increase in cost-per-day for each patient of $2.40 after switching medications. However, sensitivity analyses removing costs incurred post-switch that were potentially due to the failure of the initial medication suggested decreases in costs in the range of $4.77 to $9.69 per day post-switch.
Conclusion:
Pre-Post cost analyses are sensitive to the approach used to handle acute-service costs occurring just after a medication change. Given the importance of quality economic research on the cost of switching treatments, thorough sensitivity analyses should be performed to identify the impact of crisis events around the time of medication change.</description>
        <link>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/11</link>
                <dc:creator>Douglas Faries</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Allen Nyhuis</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Haya Ascher-Svanum</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2009, 7:11</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-05-27T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-11</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7547</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>11</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-05-27T00:00:00Z</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>
