| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Häggström, Jenny, et al.
(författare)
-
Is the Salut Programme an effective and cost-effective universal health promotion intervention for parents and their children? : a register-based retrospective observational study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 7:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Salut Programme, a universal health promotion intervention, compared with care-as-usual, over the periods of pregnancy, delivery and the child's first 2 years of life.METHOD: We adopted a register-based retrospective observational design using existing data sources with respect to both exposures and outcomes. Health outcomes and costs were compared between geographical areas that received care-as-usual (non-Salut area) and areas where the programme was implemented (Salut area). We included mothers and their children from both the Salut and non-Salut areas if: (1) the child was born 2002-2004 (premeasure period) or (2) the child was born 2006-2008 (postmeasure period). The effectiveness study adopted two strategies: (1) a matched difference-in-difference analysis using data from all participants and (2) a longitudinal analysis restricted to mothers who had given birth twice, that is, both in the premeasure and postmeasure periods. The economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare and a limited societal perspective. Outcomes were clustered during pregnancy, delivery and birth and the child's first 2 years.RESULTS: Difference-in-difference analyses did not yield any significant effect on the outcomes. Longitudinal analyses resulted in significant positive improvement in Apgar scores, reflecting the newborn's physical condition, with more children having a normal Apgar score (1 min +3%, 5 min +1%). The cost of the programme was international dollar (INT$)308/child. From both costing perspectives, the programme yielded higher effects and lower costs than care-as-usual, being thus cost-saving (probability of around 50%).CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the Salut Programme is an effective universal intervention to improve maternal and child health, and it may be good value for money; however, there is large uncertainty around the cost estimates.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Virtanen, Suvi Erika, et al.
(författare)
-
Economic evaluation of a brief counselling for smoking cessation in dentistry : a case study comparing two health economic models
- 2017
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 7:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness estimates of a brief counselling of smoking cessation in dentistry by using two different health economic models.DESIGN AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Intervention effectiveness was estimated in a cluster randomised controlled trial. The number of quitters was estimated based on 7-day abstinence and on smoking reduction at follow-up. Health economic evaluation was performed using two models: (1) a population-based model employing potential impact fractions and (2) a Markov model estimating the cost-effectiveness of the intervention for the actual participants. The evaluation was performed from healthcare and societal perspectives, and health gains were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).SETTING: Dental clinics in Sweden.PARTICIPANTS: 205 Swedish smokers aged 20-75 years.INTERVENTIONS: A brief, structured behavioural intervention was compared with 'usual care'.RESULTS: The cost per quitter was US$552 in the intervention and US$522 in the 'usual care' condition. The net saving estimated with the population-based model was US$17.3 million for intervention and US$49.9 million for 'usual care', with health gains of 1428 QALYs and 2369 QALYs, respectively, for the whole Swedish population during 10 years. The intervention was thus dominated by 'usual care'. The reverse was true when using the Markov model, showing net societal savings of US$71 000 for the intervention and US$57000 for 'usual care', with gains of 5.42 QALYs and 4.74 QALYs, respectively, for lifelong quitters.CONCLUSION: The comparison of intervention and 'usual care' derived from small-scale studies may be highly sensitive to the choice of the model used to calculate cost-effectiveness.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The cluster randomised trial is registered in the ISRCTN register of controlled trials with identification number ISRCTN50627997.
|
|
