The Experts below are selected from a list of 17364 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Robert S Van Howe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a Cost Utility Analysis of neonatal circumcision
Medical Decision Making, 2004Co-Authors: Robert S Van HoweAbstract:A Cost-Utility Analysis, based on published data from multiple observational studies, comparing boys circumcised at birth and those not circumcised was undertaken using the Quality of Well-being Scale, a Markov Analysis, the standard reference case, and a societal perspective. Neonatal circumcision increased incremental Costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was Cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more Costly than not circumcising. Using sensitivity Analysis, it was impossible to arrange a scenario that made neonatal circumcision Cost-effective. Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically.
Jeff Richardson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cost Utility Analysis what should be measured
Social Science & Medicine, 1994Co-Authors: Jeff RichardsonAbstract:The paper re-examines the issue of the appropriate unit for measuring output in Cost Utility Analysis and the technique that will measure it. There are two main themes. The first is that Utility, as it is often conceived and quantified, is not an appropriate basis for measurement. Consequently, a question arises concerning the selection of an appropriate unit of measurement. The second theme is that there is a need to establish criteria for the evaluation of measurement units. Four criteria are proposed which follow from commonly accepted social objectives and from the requirements of a measurement unit. It is concluded that, as judged by these criteria, the measurement units produced by the time trade-off and person trade-off (equivalence) techniques are more satisfactory than the units produced by the rating scale, magnitude estimation or the standard gamble.
-
A Cost Utility Analysis of mammography screening in Australia
Social Science & Medicine, 1992Co-Authors: Jane Hall, Karen Gerard, Glenn Salkeld, Jeff RichardsonAbstract:Cost Utility Analysis is the preferred method of Analysis when quality of life instead is an important outcome of the project being appraised. However, there are several methodological issues to be resolved in implementing Cost Utility Analysis, including whether to use generalised measures or direct disease specific outcome assessment, the choice of measurement technique, and the combination of different health states. Screening for breast cancer meets this criterion as mammographic screening has been shown to reduce mortality; and it is said that earlier treatment frequently results in less radical surgery so that women are offered the additional benefit of improved quality of life. Australia, like many other countries, has been debating whether to introduce a national mammographic screening programme. This paper presents the results of a Cost Utility Analysis of breast cancer screening using an approach to measuring outcome, Healthy Year Equivalents, developed within this study to resolve these problems. Descriptions of breast cancer quality of life were developed from surveys of women with breast cancer, health professionals and the published literature. The time trade off technique was then used to derive values for breast cancer treatment outcomes in a survey of women in Sydney, Australia. Respondents included women with breast cancer and women who had not had breast cancer. Testing of (i) the effect of prognosis on the value attached to a health scenario; and (ii) whether the value attached to a health scenario remains constant over time has been reported. The estimate of the net Costs of screening are reported. The Costs of breast cancer screening include the screening programme itself, the further investigations and the subsequent treatment of breast cancer cases. Breast cancer is treated in the absence of screening, many commentators claim earlier treatment is Costly but there is little evidence. Therefore we have investigated current patterns of breast cancer treatment, current use of investigations for women presenting with symptoms and current use of covert mammography screening. The results are extrapolated to obtain estimates of the Costs and outcomes presented as Cost per healthy year equivalent. This Analysis produces important information for the Australian policy debate over mammography. It also contributes to the development of Cost Utility Analysis and the approach developed here can be applied more generally.
Elham Siavashi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Neonatal Screening: Cost-Utility Analysis for Galactosemia.
Iranian journal of public health, 2020Co-Authors: Nahid Hatam, Mehrdad Askarian, Samad Shirvani, Elham SiavashiAbstract:Galactosemia is a congenital metabolic disorder that can damage the health of a newborn. Screening is an important step to prevent and treat this condition. Due to increasing health care Costs and limited financial resources of health systems, the most suitable economic Analysis tool should be applied. The aim of this study was to analyze the Cost-Utility of neonatal screening program for diagnosing galactosemia in Fars province, Iran. In this cross-sectional study and Cost-Utility Analysis in the Cost of screening for galactosemia and its financial effects, decision tree model and society's viewpoint were used. The population of study was 81837 infants referred to Neonatal Screening Laboratory (Nader Kazemi Clinic) affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Iran, in 2010. Quality of life in two groups of patients was evaluated by using the time trade-off. The best intervention option was selected by using the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio. The estimated Cost of diagnosed through screening and without screening were 43519911 and 130011168 Iranian Rails (4222.00 $ and 12615.00 $), respectively. Therefore, there was a saving of 201443240.99 Iranian Rails (19641.00 $), for each patient annually. The screening program can improve both the qualitative and quantitative lifestyle of people and increase savings in health care system. Policymakers could use the results to design new policies based on the necessity of screening.
-
Neonatal Screening: Cost-Utility Analysis for Galactosemia
Iranian Journal of Public Health, 2017Co-Authors: Nahid Hatam, Mehrdad Askarian, Samad Shirvani, Elham SiavashiAbstract:Background: Galactosemia is a congenital metabolic disorder that can damage the health of a newborn. Screening is an important step to prevent and treat this condition. Due to increasing health care Costs and limited financial resources of health systems, the most suitable economic Analysis tool should be applied. The aim of this study was to analyze the Cost-Utility of neonatal screening program for diagnosing galactosemia in Fars province, Iran. Methods: In this cross-sectional study and Cost-Utility Analysis in the Cost of screening for galactosemia and its financial effects, decision tree model and society’s viewpoint were used. The population of study was 81837 infants referred to Neonatal Screening Laboratory (Nader Kazemi Clinic) affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Iran, in 2010. Quality of life in two groups of patients was evaluated by using the time trade-off. The best intervention option was selected by using the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio. Results: The estimated Cost of diagnosed through screening and without screening were 43519911 and 130011168 Iranian Rails (4222.00 $ and 12615.00 $), respectively. Therefore, there was a saving of 201443240.99 Iranian Rails (19641.00 $), for each patient annually. Conclusion: The screening program can improve both the qualitative and quantitative lifestyle of people and increase savings in health care system. Policymakers could use the results to design new policies based on the necessity of screening.
Tracy Levett-jones - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Cost–Utility Analysis of medium vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2011Co-Authors: Samuel Lapkin, Tracy Levett-jonesAbstract:Aims and objectives. This study presents a Cost–Utility Analysis that compared medium- vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education. The Analysis sought to determine whether the extra Costs associated with high-fidelity manikins can justify the differences, if any, in the outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. Background. Investment in simulated learning environments has increased at an unprecedented pace. One of the driving forces is the potential for simulation experiences to improve students’ learning and engagement. A Cost-effectiveness Analysis is needed to inform decisions related to investment in and use of simulation equipment. Method. Costs associated with the use of medium- and high-fidelity manikins were calculated to determine the total Cost for each. A Cost-Utility Analysis using multiattribute Utility function was then conducted to combine Costs and three outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction from a quasi-experimental study to arrive at an overall Cost Utility. Results. The Cost Analysis indicated that to obtain equivalent clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction scores, it required $AU1·21 (US$ 1·14; €0·85) using medium-fidelity as compared with $AU6·28 (US$6·17; €4·40) for high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins per student. Conclusion. Based on the results of the Cost-Utility Analysis, medium-fidelity manikins are more Cost effective requiring one-fifth of the Cost of high-fidelity manikins to obtain the same effect on clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. Relevance to clinical practice. It is important that decision-makers have an economic Analysis that considers both the Costs and outcomes of simulation to identify the approach that has the lowest Cost for any particular outcome measure or the best outcomes for a particular Cost.
-
A Cost-Utility Analysis of medium vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education.
Journal of clinical nursing, 2011Co-Authors: Samuel Lapkin, Tracy Levett-jonesAbstract:This study presents a Cost-Utility Analysis that compared medium- vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education. The Analysis sought to determine whether the extra Costs associated with high-fidelity manikins can justify the differences, if any, in the outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. Investment in simulated learning environments has increased at an unprecedented pace. One of the driving forces is the potential for simulation experiences to improve students' learning and engagement. A Cost-effectiveness Analysis is needed to inform decisions related to investment in and use of simulation equipment. Costs associated with the use of medium- and high-fidelity manikins were calculated to determine the total Cost for each. A Cost-Utility Analysis using multiattribute Utility function was then conducted to combine Costs and three outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction from a quasi-experimental study to arrive at an overall Cost Utility. The Cost Analysis indicated that to obtain equivalent clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction scores, it required $AU1·21 (US$ 1·14; €0·85) using medium-fidelity as compared with $AU6·28 (US$6·17; €4·40) for high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins per student. Based on the results of the Cost-Utility Analysis, medium-fidelity manikins are more Cost effective requiring one-fifth of the Cost of high-fidelity manikins to obtain the same effect on clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. It is important that decision-makers have an economic Analysis that considers both the Costs and outcomes of simulation to identify the approach that has the lowest Cost for any particular outcome measure or the best outcomes for a particular Cost. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Samuel Lapkin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a Cost Utility Analysis of medium vs high fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2011Co-Authors: Samuel Lapkin, Tracy LevettjonesAbstract:AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study presents a Cost-Utility Analysis that compared medium- vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education. The Analysis sought to determine whether the extra Costs associated with high-fidelity manikins can justify the differences, if any, in the outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Investment in simulated learning environments has increased at an unprecedented pace. One of the driving forces is the potential for simulation experiences to improve students' learning and engagement. A Cost-effectiveness Analysis is needed to inform decisions related to investment in and use of simulation equipment. METHOD: Costs associated with the use of medium- and high-fidelity manikins were calculated to determine the total Cost for each. A Cost-Utility Analysis using multiattribute Utility function was then conducted to combine Costs and three outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction from a quasi-experimental study to arrive at an overall Cost Utility. RESULTS: The Cost Analysis indicated that to obtain equivalent clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction scores, it required $AU1·21 (US$ 1·14; €0·85) using medium-fidelity as compared with $AU6·28 (US$6·17; €4·40) for high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins per student. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the Cost-Utility Analysis, medium-fidelity manikins are more Cost effective requiring one-fifth of the Cost of high-fidelity manikins to obtain the same effect on clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: It is important that decision-makers have an economic Analysis that considers both the Costs and outcomes of simulation to identify the approach that has the lowest Cost for any particular outcome measure or the best outcomes for a particular Cost.
-
A Cost–Utility Analysis of medium vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2011Co-Authors: Samuel Lapkin, Tracy Levett-jonesAbstract:Aims and objectives. This study presents a Cost–Utility Analysis that compared medium- vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education. The Analysis sought to determine whether the extra Costs associated with high-fidelity manikins can justify the differences, if any, in the outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. Background. Investment in simulated learning environments has increased at an unprecedented pace. One of the driving forces is the potential for simulation experiences to improve students’ learning and engagement. A Cost-effectiveness Analysis is needed to inform decisions related to investment in and use of simulation equipment. Method. Costs associated with the use of medium- and high-fidelity manikins were calculated to determine the total Cost for each. A Cost-Utility Analysis using multiattribute Utility function was then conducted to combine Costs and three outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction from a quasi-experimental study to arrive at an overall Cost Utility. Results. The Cost Analysis indicated that to obtain equivalent clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction scores, it required $AU1·21 (US$ 1·14; €0·85) using medium-fidelity as compared with $AU6·28 (US$6·17; €4·40) for high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins per student. Conclusion. Based on the results of the Cost-Utility Analysis, medium-fidelity manikins are more Cost effective requiring one-fifth of the Cost of high-fidelity manikins to obtain the same effect on clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. Relevance to clinical practice. It is important that decision-makers have an economic Analysis that considers both the Costs and outcomes of simulation to identify the approach that has the lowest Cost for any particular outcome measure or the best outcomes for a particular Cost.
-
A Cost-Utility Analysis of medium vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education.
Journal of clinical nursing, 2011Co-Authors: Samuel Lapkin, Tracy Levett-jonesAbstract:This study presents a Cost-Utility Analysis that compared medium- vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education. The Analysis sought to determine whether the extra Costs associated with high-fidelity manikins can justify the differences, if any, in the outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. Investment in simulated learning environments has increased at an unprecedented pace. One of the driving forces is the potential for simulation experiences to improve students' learning and engagement. A Cost-effectiveness Analysis is needed to inform decisions related to investment in and use of simulation equipment. Costs associated with the use of medium- and high-fidelity manikins were calculated to determine the total Cost for each. A Cost-Utility Analysis using multiattribute Utility function was then conducted to combine Costs and three outcomes of clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction from a quasi-experimental study to arrive at an overall Cost Utility. The Cost Analysis indicated that to obtain equivalent clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction scores, it required $AU1·21 (US$ 1·14; €0·85) using medium-fidelity as compared with $AU6·28 (US$6·17; €4·40) for high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins per student. Based on the results of the Cost-Utility Analysis, medium-fidelity manikins are more Cost effective requiring one-fifth of the Cost of high-fidelity manikins to obtain the same effect on clinical reasoning, knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. It is important that decision-makers have an economic Analysis that considers both the Costs and outcomes of simulation to identify the approach that has the lowest Cost for any particular outcome measure or the best outcomes for a particular Cost. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
