Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background and Objective: In developed countries, injection drug users have the highest prevalence and incidence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Clinicians and policy makers have several options for reducing morbidity and mortality related to HCV infection, including preventing new infections, screening high-risk populations, and optimizing uptake and delivery of antiviral therapy. Cost-effectiveness analyses provide an estimate of the value for money associated with adopting healthcare interventions. Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of hepatitis C interventions (prevention, screening, treatment) targeting substance users and other groups with a high proportion of substance users. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HealthSTAR and EconLit, and the grey literature. Studies were critically appraised using the Drummond and Jefferson, Neumann et al. and Philips et al. checklists. We developed and applied a quality appraisal instrument specific to cost-effectiveness analyses of HCV interventions. In addition, we summarized cost-effectiveness estimates using a single currency and year ($US, year 2009 values). Results: Twenty-one economic evaluations were included, which addressed prevention (three), screening (ten) and treatment (eight). The quality of the analyses varied greatly. A significant proportion did not incorporate important aspects of HCV natural history, disease costs and antiviral therapy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (less costly and more effective) to $US603 352 per QALY. However, many ICERs were less than $US100 000 per QALY. Screening and treatment interventions involving pegylated interferon and ribavirin were generally cost effective at the $US100000 per QALY threshold, with the exception of some subgroups, such as immune compromised patients with genotype 1 infections. Conclusions: No clear consensus emerged from the studies demonstrating that prevention, screening or treatment provides better value for money as each approach can be economically attractive in certain subgroups. More high-quality economic evaluations of preventing, identifying and treating HCV infection in substance users are needed.

Background Multi-disciplinary heart failure (HF) clinics have been shown to improve outcomes for HF patients in randomized clinical trials. However, it is unclear how widely available specialized HF clinics are in Ontario. Also, the service models of current clinics have not been described. It is therefore uncertain whether the efficacy of HF clinics in trials is generalizable to the HF clinics currently operating in the province. Methods As part of a comprehensive evaluation of HF clinics in Ontario, we performed an environmental scan to identify all HF clinics operating in 2010. A semi-structured interview was conducted to understand the scope of practice. The intensity and complexity of care offered were quantified through the use of a validated instrument, and clinics were categorized as high, medium or low intensity clinics. Results We identified 34 clinics with 143 HF physicians. We found substantial regional disparity in access to care across the province. The majority of HF physicians were cardiologists (81%), with 81% of the clinics physically based in hospitals, of which 26% were academic centers. There was a substantial range in the complexity of services offered, most notably in the intensity of education and medication management services offered. All the clinics focused on ambulatory care, with only one having an in-patient focus. None of the HF clinics had a home-based component to care. Conclusions Multiple HF clinics are currently operating in Ontario with a wide spectrum of care models. Further work is necessary to understand which components lead to improved patient outcomes.

Purpose To develop an evidence-based guideline for the management of grades I–III neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). Methods This guideline is based on recent systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences (obtained from qualitative research) when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with grades I–III NAD <6 months duration. Recommendation 1 Clinicians should rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of NAD. Once major pathology has been ruled out, clinicians should classify NAD as grade I, II, or III. Recommendation 2 Clinicians should assess prognostic factors for delayed recovery from NAD. Recommendation 3 Clinicians should educate and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of the typical course of NAD grades I–III and the importance of maintaining activity and movement. Patients with worsening symptoms and those who develop new physical or psychological symptoms should be referred to a physician for further evaluation at any time during their care. Recommendation 4 For NAD grades I–II ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion exercise, multimodal care (range of motion exercise with manipulation or mobilization), or muscle relaxants. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, cervical collar, electroacupuncture, electrotherapy, or clinic-based heat. Recommendation 5 For NAD grades I–II >3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion and strengthening exercises, qigong, yoga, multimodal care (exercise with manipulation or mobilization), clinical massage, low-level laser therapy, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer strengthening exercises alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, relaxation therapy for pain or disability, electrotherapy, shortwave diathermy, clinic-based heat, electroacupuncture, or botulinum toxin injections. Recommendation 6 For NAD grade III ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider supervised strengthening exercises in addition to structured patient education. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, cervical collar, low-level laser therapy, or traction. Recommendation 7 For NAD grade III >3 months duration, clinicians should not offer a cervical collar. Patients who continue to experience neurological signs and disability more than 3 months after injury should be referred to a physician for investigation and management. Recommendation 8 Clinicians should reassess the patient at every visit to determine if additional care is necessary, the condition is worsening, or the patient has recovered. Patients reporting significant recovery should be discharged.

Background Whiplash injury affects 83% of persons in a traffic collision and leads to whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). A major challenge facing health care decision makers is identifying cost-effective interventions due to lack of economic evidence. Our objective is to compare the cost-effectiveness of: 1) physician-based education and activation, 2) a rehabilitation program developed by Aviva Canada (a group of property and casualty insurance providers), and 3) the legislated standard of care in the Canadian province of Ontario: the Pre-approved Framework Guideline for Whiplash developed by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. Methods/Design The economic evaluation will use participant-level data from the University Health Network Whiplash Intervention Trial and will be conducted from the societal perspective over the trial's one-year follow-up. Resource use (costs) will include all health care goods and services, and benefits provided during the trial's 1-year follow-up. The primary health effect will be the quality-adjusted life year. We will identify the most cost-effective intervention using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental net-benefit. Confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will represent uncertainty around these statistics, respectively. A budget impact analysis will assess the total annual impact of replacing the current legislated standard of care with each of the other interventions. An expected value of perfect information will determine the maximum research expenditure Canadian society should be willing to pay for, and inform priority setting in, research of WAD management. Discussion Results will provide health care decision makers with much needed economic evidence on common interventions for acute whiplash management. Trial Registration http://ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00546806 [Trial registry date: October 18, 2007; Date first patient was randomized: February 27, 2008]

Purpose To update findings of the 2000–2010 Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders and evaluate the effectiveness of non-invasive and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of patients with headaches associated with neck pain (i.e., tension-type, cervicogenic, or whiplash-related headaches). Methods We searched five databases from 1990 to 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case–control studies comparing non-invasive interventions with other interventions, placebo/sham, or no interventions. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria to determine scientific admissibility. Studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. Results We screened 17,236 citations, 15 studies were relevant, and 10 had a low risk of bias. The evidence suggests that episodic tension-type headaches should be managed with low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises. Patients with chronic tension-type headaches may also benefit from low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises; relaxation training with stress coping therapy; or multimodal care that includes spinal mobilization, craniocervical exercises, and postural correction. For cervicogenic headaches, low load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises; or manual therapy (manipulation with or without mobilization) to the cervical and thoracic spine may also be helpful. Conclusions The management of headaches associated with neck pain should include exercise. Patients who suffer from chronic tension-type headaches may also benefit from relaxation training with stress coping therapy or multimodal care. Patients with cervicogenic headache may also benefit from a course of manual therapy.

Background Whiplash injuries are an important public health problem that is associated with significant disability and high health care utilization. Recent cohort studies suggest that physician care may be the most effective treatment for patients with whiplash-associated disorders. However, these findings have not been tested in a randomized controlled trial. The purpose of this study is to determine which of physician care or two rehabilitation programs of care is most effective in improving recovery of patients with recent whiplash associated disorders. Methods and Design We designed a pragmatic randomized clinical trial. A total of 444 participants (148 in each of three arms) who reside in Southern Ontario, Canada will be recruited from a large insurer. We will include individuals who are 18 years of age or older and who are diagnosed with Grade I or II Whiplash-associated Disorders. Participants will be randomized to physician-based education and activation or one of two rehabilitation programs of care currently in use in Ontario. Our primary outcome, self-rated global recovery and all secondary outcomes (neck pain intensity, whiplash disability, health-related quality of life, depressive symptomatology and satisfaction with care) will be measured at baseline by a trial coordinator and at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up by an interviewer who is blind to the participants' baseline characteristics and treatment allocation. We will also collect information on general health status, other injuries, comorbidities, expectation of recovery, work status, pain coping, legal representation, and co-interventions. The primary intention-to-treat analysis will compare time to recovery between the three interventions. This trial will have 90% power at an alpha of 0.05 to detect a 20% difference in the rate of perceived recovery at one year. Secondary analyses will compare the health outcomes, rate of recurrence and the rate of adverse events between intervention groups. Conclusion The results of this study will provide the public, clinicians and policy makers much needed evidence on the effectiveness of common approaches used to manage whiplash-associated disorders. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00546806

In 2007, the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (OHTAC) developed a decision framework to guide decision making around nondrug health technologies. In 2012, OHTAC commissioned a revision of this framework to enhance its usability and deepen its conceptual and theoretical foundations. The committee overseeing this work used several methods: (a) a priori consensus on guiding principles, (b) a scoping review of decision attributes and processes used globally in health technology assessment (HTA), (c) presentations by methods experts and members of review committees, and (d) committee deliberations over a period of 3 years. The committee adopted a multi-criteria decision-making approach, but rejected the formal use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Three broad categories of attributes were identified: (I) context criteria attributes included factors such as stakeholders, adoption pressures from neighboring jurisdictions, and potential conflicts of interest; (II) primary appraisal criteria attributes included (i) benefits and harms, (ii) economics, and (iii) patient-centered care; (III) feasibility criteria attributes included budget impact and organizational feasibility. The revised Ontario Decision Framework is similar in some respects to frameworks used in HTA worldwide. Its distinctive characteristics are that: it is based on an explicit set of social values; HTA paradigms (evidence based medicine, economics, and bioethics/social science) are used to aggregate decision attributes; and that it is rooted in a theoretical framework of optimal decision making, rather than one related to broad social goals, such as health or welfare maximization.

Study Design Systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Objectives To describe the prevalence and incidence of neck pain and disability in workers; to identify risk factors for neck pain in workers; to propose an etiological diagram; and to make recommendations for future research. Summary of Background Data Previous reviews of the etiology of neck pain in workers relied on cross-sectional evidence. Recently published cohorts and randomized trials warrant a re-analysis of this body of research. Methods We systematically searched Medline for literature published from 1980–2006. Retrieved articles were reviewed for relevance. Relevant articles were critically appraised. Articles judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our best evidence synthesis. Results One hundred and nine papers on the burden and determinants of neck pain in workers were scientifically admissible. The annual prevalence of neck pain varied from 27.1% in Norway to 47.8% in Québec, Canada. Each year, between 11% and 14.1% of workers were limited in their activities because of neck pain. Risk factors associated with neck pain in workers include age, previous musculoskeletal pain, high quantitative job demands, low social support at work, job insecurity, low physical capacity, poor computer workstation design and work posture, sedentary work position, repetitive work and precision work. We found preliminary evidence that gender, occupation, headaches, emotional problems, smoking, poor job satisfaction, awkward work postures, poor physical work environment, and workers’ ethnicity may be associated with neck pain. There is evidence that interventions aimed at modifying workstations and worker posture are not effective in reducing the incidence of neck pain in workers. Conclusion Neck disorders are a significant source of pain and activity limitations in workers. Most neck pain results from complex relationships between individual and workplace risk factors. No prevention strategies have been shown to reduce the incidence of neck pain in workers.

The pursuit of interpretability of longitudinal measures of patient outcome has led to several methods for defining minimal amounts of change or final states that are important. Little is known about the best method. The purpose of this study was to directly compare methods using diagnostic utility to evaluate their usefulness. Secondary analysis of longitudinal cohort data of persons attending physiotherapy for shoulder pain. Disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand outcome fielded at baseline and 3 months. Published methods were used to define positive response in scores: minimal change, final state, and combined change and final state. Proportions described as improved were compared (Kappa) and diagnostic testing techniques used to evaluate the strengths of each. Only moderate agreement was found between methods (Kappa = 0.47). Minimal clinically important differences were most sensitive but not specific. Final states were less sensitive, more specific, and most accurate. Combinations were slightly less specific. A new approach allowed us to evaluate the relative merits and risks of different approaches to interpreting longitudinal patient outcomes. Our study points to a combination of change greater than error and/or a final score within general population norms as being the most clinically sensible with strong diagnostic accuracy.