scholarly journals What is the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using drugs in treating obese patients in primary care? A systematic review.

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Ara ◽  
L Blake ◽  
L Gray ◽  
M Hernández ◽  
M Crowther ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Obese Patients

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of issuing longer versus shorter duration (3-month vs. 28-day) prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions: systematic review and economic modelling

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (78) ◽  
pp. 1-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Céline Miani ◽  
Adam Martin ◽  
Josephine Exley ◽  
Brett Doble ◽  
Ed Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Study ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Studies ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundTo reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length; however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care.Design/data sourcesThe design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with < 60-day and ≥ 60-day prescriptions for five patient cohorts over an 11-year period from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Third, a decision model adapting three existing models to predict costs and effects of differing adherence levels associated with 28-day versus 3-month prescriptions in three clinical scenarios.Review methodsIn the systematic review, from 15,257 unique citations, 54 full-text papers were reviewed and 16 studies were included, five of which were abstracts and one of which was an extended conference abstract. None was a randomised controlled trial: 11 were retrospective cohort studies, three were cross-sectional surveys and two were cost studies. No information on health outcomes was available.ResultsAn exploratory meta-analysis based on six retrospective cohort studies suggested that lower adherence was associated with 28-day prescriptions (standardised mean difference –0.45, 95% confidence interval –0.65 to –0.26). The cost analysis showed that a statistically significant increase in medication waste was associated with longer prescription lengths. However, when accounting for dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescriptions were found to be cost saving compared with shorter prescriptions. Prescriber time was the largest component of the calculated cost savings to the NHS. The decision modelling suggested that, in all three clinical scenarios, longer prescription lengths were associated with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years.LimitationsThe available evidence was found to be at a moderate to serious risk of bias. All of the studies were conducted in the USA, which was a cause for concern in terms of generalisability to the UK. No evidence of the direct impact of prescription length on health outcomes was found. The cost study could investigate prescriptions issued only; it could not assess patient adherence to those prescriptions. Additionally, the cost study was based on products issued only and did not account for underlying patient diagnoses. A lack of good-quality evidence affected our decision modelling strategy.ConclusionsAlthough the quality of the evidence was poor, this study found that longer prescriptions may be less costly overall, and may be associated with better adherence than 28-day prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions being treated in primary care.Future workThere is a need to more reliably evaluate the impact of differing prescription lengths on adherence, on patient health outcomes and on total costs to the NHS. The priority should be to identify patients with particular conditions or characteristics who should receive shorter or longer prescriptions. To determine the need for any further research, an expected value of perfect information analysis should be performed.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027042.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Decision support tools to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (689) ◽  
pp. e809-e818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Chima ◽  
Jeanette C Reece ◽  
Kristi Milley ◽  
Shakira Milton ◽  
Jennifer G McIntosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Decision Support Tools ◽  
Diagnostic Decision ◽  
Support Tools ◽  
Diagnostic Decision Making

BackgroundThe diagnosis of cancer in primary care is complex and challenging. Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) have been proposed as an approach to improve GP decision making, but no systematic review has examined their role in cancer diagnosis.AimTo investigate whether eCDSTs improve diagnostic decision making for cancer in primary care and to determine which elements influence successful implementation.Design and settingA systematic review of relevant studies conducted worldwide and published in English between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2018.MethodPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and a consultation of reference lists and citation tracking was carried out. Exclusion criteria included the absence of eCDSTs used in asymptomatic populations, and studies that did not involve support delivered to the GP. The most relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were applied according to study design of the included paper.ResultsOf the nine studies included, three showed improvements in decision making for cancer diagnosis, three demonstrated positive effects on secondary clinical or health service outcomes such as prescribing, quality of referrals, or cost-effectiveness, and one study found a reduction in time to cancer diagnosis. Barriers to implementation included trust, the compatibility of eCDST recommendations with the GP’s role as a gatekeeper, and impact on workflow.ConclusioneCDSTs have the capacity to improve decision making for a cancer diagnosis, but the optimal mode of delivery remains unclear. Although such tools could assist GPs in the future, further well-designed trials of all eCDSTs are needed to determine their cost-effectiveness and the most appropriate implementation methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document