| 1. |
- Guinness, Lorna, et al.
(författare)
-
Essential emergency and critical care as a health system response to critical illness and the COVID19 pandemic : what does it cost?
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1478-7547. ; 21:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) is a novel approach to the care of critically ill patients, focusing on first-tier, effective, low-cost, life-saving care and designed to be feasible even in low-resourced and low-staffed settings. This is distinct from advanced critical care, usually conducted in ICUs with specialised staff, facilities and technologies. This paper estimates the incremental cost of EECC and advanced critical care for the planning of care for critically ill patients in Tanzania and Kenya.The incremental costing took a health systems perspective. A normative approach based on the ingredients defined through the recently published global consensus on EECC was used. The setting was a district hospital in which the patient is provided with the definitive care typically provided at that level for their condition. Quantification of resource use was based on COVID-19 as a tracer condition using clinical expertise. Local prices were used where available, and all costs were converted to USD2020.The costs per patient day of EECC is estimated to be 1 USD, 11 USD and 33 USD in Tanzania and 2 USD, 14 USD and 37 USD in Kenya, for moderate, severe and critical COVID-19 patients respectively. The cost per patient day of advanced critical care is estimated to be 13 USD and 294 USD in Tanzania and USD 17 USD and 345 USD in Kenya for severe and critical COVID-19 patients, respectively.EECC is a novel approach for providing the essential care to all critically ill patients. The low costs and lower tech approach inherent in delivering EECC mean that EECC could be provided to many and suggests that prioritizing EECC over ACC may be a rational approach when resources are limited.
|
|
| 2. |
- Oortwijn, Wija, et al.
(författare)
-
Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment : A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force
- 2022
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. - Cambridge, United Kingdom : Cambridge University Press. - 0266-4623 .- 1471-6348. ; 38:1, s. 1-16
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap.Methods The joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review.Results A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation.Conclusions The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.
|
|
| 3. |
- Oortwijn, Wija, et al.
(författare)
-
Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Value in Health. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 1098-3015 .- 1524-4733. ; 25:6, s. 869-886
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap. Methods: The joint Task Force consisted of 15 members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to 2 rounds of peer review. Results: A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation. Conclusions: The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by 6 phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.
|
|
| 4. |
- Shah, Hiral Anil, et al.
(författare)
-
Cost Effectiveness of Strategies for Caring for Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in Tanzania.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: PharmacoEconomics - open. - : Springer. - 2509-4254. ; 7:4, s. 537-552
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The resources for critical care are limited in many settings, exacerbating the significant morbidity and mortality associated with critical illness. Budget constraints can lead to choices between investing in advanced critical care (e.g. mechanical ventilators in intensive care units) or more basic critical care such as Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC; e.g. vital signs monitoring, oxygen therapy, and intravenous fluids).METHODS: We investigated the cost effectiveness of providing EECC and advanced critical care in Tanzania in comparison with providing 'no critical care' or 'district hospital-level critical care' using coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a tracer condition. We developed an open-source Markov model ( https://github.com/EECCnetwork/POETIC_CEA ) to estimate costs and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted, using a provider perspective, a 28-day time horizon, patient outcomes obtained from an elicitation method involving a seven-member expert group, a normative costing study, and published literature. We performed a univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of our results., RESULTS: EECC is cost effective 94% and 99% of the time when compared with no critical care (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $37 [-$9 to $790] per DALY averted) and district hospital-level critical care (ICER $14 [-$200 to $263] per DALY averted), respectively, relative to the lowest identified estimate of the willingness-to-pay threshold for Tanzania ($101 per DALY averted). Advanced critical care is cost effective 27% and 40% of the time, when compared with the no critical care or district hospital-level critical care scenarios, respectively.CONCLUSION: For settings where there is limited or no critical care delivery, implementation of EECC could be a highly cost-effective investment. It could reduce mortality and morbidity for critically ill COVID-19 patients, and its cost effectiveness falls within the range considered 'highly cost effective'. Further research is needed to explore the potential of EECC to generate even greater benefits and value for money when patients with diagnoses other than COVID-19 are accounted for.
|
|
