Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionCardiovascular disease is estimated to affect 423 million people globally. It caused 18 million deaths in 2017 and is projected to cost US$1 trillion by 2030 worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common type of cardiovascular disease; CAD treatments can affect patients’ quality of life. Valuations of quality of life or health utilities are important for economic evaluations to ascertain relative health benefit when comparing treatments, and can be expected to change for individuals over time. The purpose of this systematic review is to estimate the quality of life of patients with CAD reported through the EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire, from short to longer term time points following different treatments.Methods and analysisPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the EuroQol website will be systematically searched from January 2003–March 2020. Published, peer-reviewed, English language studies assessing quality of life of patients with CAD using the EQ-5D will be included. One researcher will conduct the search; two researchers will independently screen titles and abstracts for potential inclusion. Full texts of potentially eligible studies will be retrieved for a second round of independent screening against inclusion and exclusion criteria by two researchers. The final list of included studies will be assessed for risk of bias using the RoB 2 and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools for randomised and non-randomised studies, respectively. Data extraction will be done by one researcher, with data extraction for a random 10% of included studies checked by a second researcher. Mean utility weights for individual studies will be combined using random effects model meta-analyses. A model will be run separately for each time point and treatment. Treatment time points of interest include baseline, 30 days, 6 months, 12–24 months and more than 24 months. Subgroup analysis of patients with diabetes who received interventional treatments—coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention with or without stents, will be conducted for the same selected time points.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for systematic reviews. Results of the review will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

ObjectivesTo examine the relative differences in injury hospitalisation cost estimates from hospital administrative data when using (1) hospital reimbursement based on National Efficient Price (NEP) versus local hospital costings methods, (2) inflation factors based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) versus health group index and (3) different healthcare funder’s perspectives.DesignRetrospective population-based cohort study of linked Queensland Hospital Admitted Patient Data Collection dataset and National Hospital Cost Data Collection data.SettingAll admitted injury-related care episodes occurring within a major trauma hospital in Queensland during 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017.Outcome measureTotal in-patient hospitalisation cost associated with an episode of care.ResultsInjury without catastrophic/severe complications or comorbidities was the most frequently occurring Australian Refined Diagnosis-Related Groups (AR-DRG) over the 6-year period, while rehabilitation with catastrophic complications or comorbidities was the most expensive ($37 938, 95% CI $36 067 to $39 809). Among the top 10 AR-DRGs, seven had NEP-based cost estimates substantially higher than the hospital-reported costs, with differences varying between 2.6% and 43.0%. CPI-inflated costs were significantly lower than health group index-inflated estimates, with observed differences between 7.7% (95% CI 6.9% to 8.7%) and 11.9% (95% CI 10.8% to 13.1%) for the same AR-DRG. Finally, cost estimates were significantly higher for care funded by private health insurers compared with care funded by either the public insurer or compulsory third-party injury insurers, with differences varying significantly between 8.4% (95% CI 7.2% to 30.1%) and 55.0% (95% CI 53.3% to 56.9%) for the same AR-DRG. Care funded by compulsory third-party injury insurers, however, incurred the highest cost for the most expensive AR-DRGs.ConclusionThere were considerable discrepancies in cost estimates for common injury-related hospitalisations depending on type of costing method used, inflation metrics applied and healthcare funder’s perspective adopted. These factors need to be considered when evaluating hospital cost in Australia’s health system using administrative data.

The peer review process is used throughout science but has often been criticized for being inconsistent, with decisions dependent on the peers who did the reviewing. Much of the decision inconsistency arises from the differences between reviewers in terms of their expertise, training and experience. Another source of uncertainty is within reviewers as they must make a single recommendation (e.g. ‘Accept’), when they may have wavered between two (e.g. ‘Accept’ or ‘Reject’). We estimated the size of within-reviewer uncertainty using post-review surveys at three journals. We asked reviewers to think outside the recommendation they gave (e.g. ‘Accept’) and assign percentages to all other recommendations (e.g. ‘Major revision’). Reviewers who were certain could assign 100% to one recommendation. Twenty-three per cent of reviewers reported no uncertainty (95% confidence interval 19–27%). Women were associated with more uncertainty at one journal, and protocol papers were associated with more uncertainty at one journal. Reviewers commonly experience some uncertainty when peer-reviewing journal articles. This uncertainty is part of the variability in peer reviewers’ recommendation.

Background Traditional cardiac rehabilitation programs are centre-based and clinically supervised, with their safety and effectiveness well established. Notwithstanding the established benefits, cardiac rehabilitation remains underutilised. A possible alternative would be a hybrid approach where both centre-based and tele-based methods are combined to deliver cardiac rehabilitation to eligible patients. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness of a hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation and if it should be recommended to be implemented in the Australian context. Methods Following a comprehensive literature search, we chose the Telerehab III trial intervention that investigated the effectiveness of a long-term hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation program. We developed a decision analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the Telerehab III trial using a Markov process. The model included stable cardiac disease and hospitalisation health states and simulations were run using one-month cycles over a five-year time horizon. The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at $AU 28,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). For the base analysis, we assumed that 80% completed the programme. We tested the robustness of the results using probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses. Results Telerehab III intervention was more effective but more costly and was not cost-effective, at a threshold of $28,000 per QALY. For every 1,000 patients who undergo cardiac rehabilitation, employing the telerehabilitation intervention would cost $650,000 more, and 5.7 QALYs would be gained, over five years, compared to current practice. Under probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the intervention was cost-effective in only 18% of simulations. Similarly, if the intervention compliance was increased to 90%, it was still unlikely to be cost-effective. Conclusion Hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation is highly unlikely to be cost-effective compared to the current practice in Australia. Exploration of alternative models of delivering cardiac telerehabilitation is still required. The results presented in this study are useful for policymakers wanting to make informed decisions about investment in hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation programs.

BackgroundThere is increasing demand for knee and hip arthroplasty with considerable health system cost implications. Despite the high surgical costs relating to the prosthesis used, little is known about which factors are most influential in prosthesis choice, nor is it clear what level of variation may be warranted for clinical reasons.ObjectivesThis study had dual objectives: (1) identify factors influencing prosthesis selection for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and (2) develop a working definition for unwarranted variation in THA and TKA implant selection.DesignA three-stage prospective study: (1) develop and pilot a questionnaire with input from orthopaedic surgeons; (2) a cross-sectional survey with orthopaedic surgeons across Australia and (3) an expert panel to finalise the working definition of unwarranted variation.Setting and participantsStudy activities were conducted both virtually and in person, primarily with hospital-based orthopaedic surgeons and orthopaedic registrars across Australia, but also included health economists and health administrators in the expert panel stage.ResultsRevision rates, familiarity with an implant and implant quality were prioritised when choosing a prosthesis, while other factors, including cost, were reported to have limited influence. Technological advancement and revision rates were influential for past changes in prostheses, and strong clinical evidence is expected to precede future changes. The consensus was reached on a working definition of unwarranted variation that focused on implants with revision rates of 20% or higher compared with published benchmarks. The use of multiple cost thresholds was recommended for defining narrow and broad definitions of unwarranted variation.ConclusionStudy findings provide valuable insights into the decision-making process for prosthesis selection, as well as what surgeons believe might constitute unwarranted variation. This information can advance our understanding of the magnitude and impact of unwarranted variation in prosthesis selection, as well as inform strategies to address it.

IntroductionIn many jurisdictions, people experiencing an injury often pursue compensation to support their treatment and recovery expenses. Healthcare costs form a significant portion of payments made by compensation schemes. Compensation scheme regulators need accurate and comprehensive data on injury severity, treatment pathways and outcomes to enable scheme modelling, monitoring and forecasting. Regulators routinely rely on data provided by insurers which have limited healthcare information. Health data provide richer information and linking health data with compensation data enables the comparison of profiles, patterns, trends and outcomes of injured patients who claim and injured parties who are eligible but do not claim.Methods and analysisThis is a retrospective population-level epidemiological data linkage study of people who have sought ambulatory, emergency or hospital treatment and/or made a compensation claim in Queensland after suffering a transport or work-related injury, over the period 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2021. It will use person-linked data from nine statewide data sources: (1) Queensland Ambulance Service, (2) Emergency Department, (3) Queensland Hospital Admitted Patients, (4) Retrieval Services, (5) Hospital Costs, (6) Workers’ Compensation, (7) Compulsory Third Party Compensation, (8) National Injury Insurance Scheme and (9) Queensland Deaths Registry. Descriptive, parametric and non-parametric statistical methods and geospatial analysis techniques will be used to answer the core research questions regarding the patient’s health service use profile, costs, treatment pathways and outcomes within 2 years postincident as well as to examine the concordance and accuracy of information across health and compensation databases.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee, and governance approval was obtained via the Public Health Act 2005, Queensland. The findings of this study will be used to inform key stakeholders across the clinical, research and compensation regulation area, and results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and reports/seminars with key stakeholders.

Background Injury causes significant burden on Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. However, a considerable portion of the research conducted in this area has been carried out by Western researchers. It has been acknowledged that historical research methodologies and discourses around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research may not be suitable or beneficial. Co-production methodologies offer opportunities for research to be developed collaboratively ensuring meaningfulness of results and appropriate protection for participants. A scoping review was undertaken to investigate the use of co-production methodologies in research within the unintentional injuries space for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities over time. Main body A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, ProQuest, Embase and Indigenous Health Infonet databases. Study characteristics, remoteness, injury topic, co-production methods and elements were extracted from eligible studies. The search revealed 4175 papers, from which 39 studies were included in this scoping review. It was found that 69% of studies were fully co-produced with community. Studies predominately focused on general injury, falls prevention or brain injury rehabilitation. The most heavily utilised co-production strategy was the inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers into the writing and research team. This helped the collection of culturally safe data and appropriate interpretation of results. Conclusion There is growing diversity among co-production methodologies, better enabling meaningful engagement between community and research. This co-production helps decolonise the research process to privilege Aboriginal voices, however, more work is needed to appropriately capture Indigenous perspectives.

IntroductionAlcohol use in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) is a significant problem in many countries. There is a need for valid and reliable surveillance of the prevalence of alcohol use in patients presenting to the ED, to provide a more complete picture of the risk factors and inform targeted public health interventions. This PACE study will use two biomarkers, blood ethanol and phosphatidylethanol (PEth), to determine the patterns, presence and level of alcohol use in patients presenting to an Australian ED.Methods and analysisThis is an observational prevalence study involving the secondary use of routinely collected blood samples from patients presenting to the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital (RBWH) Emergency and Trauma Centre (ETC). Samples will be tested for acute and medium-term alcohol intake using the two biomarkers blood ethanol and PEth respectively, over one collection period of 10–12 days. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, means, SD, medians and IQRs, will be used to describe the prevalence, pattern and distribution of acute and medium-term alcohol intake in the study sample. The correlation between acute and medium-term alcohol intake levels will also be examined.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the RBWH Human Research Ethics Committee (reference, LNR/2019/QRBW/56859). Findings will be disseminated to key stakeholders such as RBWH ETC, Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Statewide Clinical Networks, and used to inform clinicians and hospital services. Findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at appropriate conferences.

Background : Cardiovascular disease remains the primary cause of death among Australians, despite dramatic improvements in overall cardiovascular health since the 1980s. Treating cardiovascular disease continues to place a significant economic strain on the Australian health care system, with direct healthcare costs exceeding those of any other disease. Coronary artery disease accounts for nearly one third of these costs and spending continues to rise. A range of treatments is available for coronary artery disease yet evidence of cost-effectiveness is missing, particularly for the Australian context. Cost-effectiveness evidence can signal waste and inefficiency and so is essential for an efficient allocation of healthcare resources. Methods: We used systematic review methods to search the literature across several electronic databases for economic evaluations of treatments for stable coronary artery disease.  We critically appraised the literature found in searches, both against the CHEERS statement for quality reporting of economic evaluations and in terms of its usefulness for policy and decision-makers. Results: We retrieved a total of 308 references, 229 once duplicates were removed. Of these, 26 were excluded as they were not full papers (letters, editorials etc.), 55 were review papers, 50 were not cost-effectiveness analyses and 93 related to a highly specific patient sub-group or did not consider all treatment options.  This left five papers to be reviewed in full. Conclusions: The current cost-effectiveness evidence does not support the increased use of PCI that has been seen in Australia and internationally. Due to problems with accessibility, clarity and relevance to policy and decision-makers, some otherwise very scientifically rigorous analyses have failed to generate any policy changes.

There is an urgent need to reduce preventable deaths and hospitalizations from prescription opioid harms and minimize the negative effect opioid misuse can have on injured individuals, families, and the wider community. Data linkage between administrative hospitalization records for injured patients and community opioid dispensing can improve our understanding of the health and surgical trajectories of injured persons and generate insights into corresponding opioid dispensing patterns. The Community Opioid Dispensing after Injury (CODI) study aims to link inpatient hospitalization data with opioid dispensing data to examine the distribution and predictive factors associated with high or prolonged community opioid dispensing among adults, for 2 years following an injury-related hospital admission. This is a retrospective population-based cohort study of adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized with an injury in Queensland, Australia. The study involves the linkage of statewide hospital admissions, opioid prescription dispensing, and mortality data collections. All adults hospitalized for an injury between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, will be included in the cohort. Demographics and injury factors are recorded at the time of the injury admission. Opioid dispensing data will be linked and extracted for 3 months prior to the injury admission date to 2 years after the injury separation date (last date December 31, 2017). Deaths data will be extracted for the 2-year follow-up period. The primary outcome measure will be opioid dispensing (frequency and quantity) in the 2 years following the injury admission. Patterns and factors associated with community opioid dispensing will be examined for different injury types, mechanisms, and population subgroups. Appropriate descriptive statistics will be used to describe the cohort. Regression models will be used to examine factors predictive of levels and duration of opioid use. Nonparametric methods will be applied when the data are not normally distributed. The project is funded by the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Foundation. As of November 2021, all ethics and data custodian approvals have been granted. Data extraction and linkage has been completed. Data management and analysis is underway with results relating to an analysis for blunt chest trauma patients expected to be published in 2022. Little is currently known of the true prevalence or patterns of opioid dispensing following injury across Queensland. This study will provide new insights about factors associated with high and long-term opioid dispensing at a population level. This information is essential to inform targeted public policy and interventions to reduce the risk of prolonged opioid use and dependence for those injured. The novel work undertaken for this project will be vital to planning, delivering, monitoring, and evaluating health care services for those injured. The findings of this study will be used to inform key stakeholders as well as clinicians and pain management services. RR1-10.2196/36357.