Explore the vast range of titles available.

Telemedicine consultations using real-time videoconferencing has the potential to improve access and quality of care, avoid patient travels, and reduce health care costs. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of an orthopedic videoconferencing service between the University Hospital of North Norway and a regional medical center in a remote community located 148 km away. An economic evaluation based on a randomized controlled trial of 389 patients (559 consultations) referred to the hospital for an orthopedic outpatient consultation was conducted. The intervention group (199 patients) was randomized to receive video-assisted remote orthopedic consultations (302 consultations), while the control group (190 patients) received standard care in outpatient consultation at the hospital (257 consultations). A societal perspective was adopted for calculating costs. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Resource use and health outcomes were collected alongside the trial at baseline and at 12 months follow-up using questionnaires, patient charts, and consultation records. These were valued using externally collected data on unit costs and QALY weights. An extended sensitivity analysis was conducted to address the robustness of the results. This study showed that using videoconferencing for orthopedic consultations in the remote clinic costs less than standard outpatient consultations at the specialist hospital, as long as the total number of patient consultations exceeds 151 per year. For a total workload of 300 consultations per year, the annual cost savings amounted to €18,616. If costs were calculated from a health sector perspective, rather than a societal perspective, the number of consultations needed to break even was 183. This study showed that providing video-assisted orthopedic consultations to a remote clinic in Northern Norway, rather than having patients travel to the specialist hospital for consultations, is cost-effective from both a societal and health sector perspective. This conclusion holds as long as the activity exceeds 151 and 183 patient consultations per year, respectively. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00616837; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00616837 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/762dZPoKX).

A cluster-randomized, controlled trial in rural areas of Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka assessed a community-based intervention for treating hypertension. The intervention, which included home visits by community health workers and training of physicians, was more effective than usual care in controlling hypertension.

\"The first edition of Applied Health Economics did an expert job of showing how the availability of large scale data sets and the rapid advancement of advanced econometric techniques can help health economists and health professionals make sense of information better than ever before.The book draws on key sources of information such as the European Community Household Panel (ECHP) and the WHO Multi-Country Survey Study (WHO-MCS) and assumes a familiarity with the computer programme Stata, now in an eleventh version. The book has been fully updated to reflect the enhancements to this key package.In addition to methodology, the book also contains a brand new chapter on regression models for health care costs, thus broadening the book's readership to those working on risk adjustment and health technology appraisal. The text also fully reflects the very latest advances in the health economics field and the key journal literature\"--Provided by publisher.

The first edition of Applied Health Economics did an expert job of showing how the availability of large scale data sets and the rapid advancement of advanced econometric techniques can help health economists and health professionals make sense of information better than ever before.This second edition has been revised and updated throughout and includes a new chapter on the description and modelling of individual health care costs, thus broadening the book's readership to those working on risk adjustment and health technology appraisal. The text also fully reflects the very

Abstract Rationale Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness is a frequent complication of critical illness. It is unclear whether it is a marker or mediator of poor outcomes. Objectives To determine acute outcomes, 1-year mortality, and costs of ICU-acquired weakness among long-stay (≥8 d) ICU patients and to assess the impact of recovery of weakness at ICU discharge. Methods Data were prospectively collected during a randomized controlled trial. Impact of weakness on outcomes and costs was analyzed with a one-to-one propensity-score-matching for baseline characteristics, illness severity, and risk factor exposure before assessment. Among weak patients, impact of persistent weakness at ICU discharge on risk of death after 1 year was examined with multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis. Measurements and Main Results A total of 78.6% were admitted to the surgical ICU; 227 of 415 (55%) long-stay assessable ICU patients were weak; 122 weak patients were matched to 122 not-weak patients. As compared with matched not-weak patients, weak patients had a lower likelihood for live weaning from mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.709 [0.549–0.888]; P = 0.009), live ICU (HR, 0.698 [0.553–0.861]; P = 0.008) and hospital discharge (HR, 0.680 [0.514–0.871]; P = 0.007). In-hospital costs per patient (+30.5%, +5,443 Euro per patient; P = 0.04) and 1-year mortality (30.6% vs. 17.2%; P = 0.015) were also higher. The 105 of 227 (46%) weak patients not matchable to not-weak patients had even worse prognosis and higher costs. The 1-year risk of death was further increased if weakness persisted and was more severe as compared with recovery of weakness at ICU discharge (P < 0.001). Conclusions After careful matching the data suggest that ICU-acquired weakness worsens acute morbidity and increases healthcare-related costs and 1-year mortality. Persistence and severity of weakness at ICU discharge further increased 1-year mortality. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00512122).

Rosoff \"discusses how to decide what should and should not be covered in a generous [health care] benefits plan for all. He considers a variety of ways this might be done and concludes that the most just approach is to utilize a transparent process in which experts and lay people develop a consensus on what should be covered by focusing on both clinical evidence of need and the effective and appropriate means to address those needs. He also considers the various objections and impediments to this proposal and concludes that they are obstacles that can be successfully met\"--Amazon.com.

Late-stage isolated medial knee osteoarthritis can be treated with total knee replacement (TKR) or partial knee replacement (PKR). There is high variation in treatment choice and little robust evidence to guide selection. The Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT) therefore aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TKR versus PKR in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee, and this represents an analysis of the main endpoints at 5 years. Our multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was done at 27 UK sites. We used a combined expertise-based and equipoise-based approach, in which patients with isolated osteoarthritis of the medial compartment of the knee and who satisfied general requirements for a medial PKR were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PKR or TKR by surgeons who were either expert in and willing to perform both surgeries or by a surgeon with particular expertise in the allocated procedure. The primary endpoint was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 5 years after randomisation in all patients assigned to groups. Health-care costs (in UK 2017 prices) and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN03013488) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01352247). Between Jan 18, 2010, and Sept 30, 2013, we assessed 962 patients for their eligibility, of whom 431 (45%) patients were excluded (121 [13%] patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 310 [32%] patients declined to participate) and 528 (55%) patients were randomly assigned to groups. 94% of participants responded to the follow-up survey 5 years after their operation. At the 5-year follow-up, we found no difference in OKS between groups (mean difference 1·04, 95% CI −0·42 to 2·50; p=0·159). In our within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis, we found that PKR was more effective (0·240 additional quality-adjusted life-years, 95% CI 0·046 to 0·434) and less expensive (−£910, 95% CI −1503 to −317) than TKR during the 5 years of follow-up. This finding was a result of slightly better outcomes, lower costs of surgery, and lower follow-up health-care costs with PKR than TKR. Both TKR and PKR are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes, and result in a similar incidence of re-operations and complications. Based on our clinical findings, and results regarding the lower costs and better cost-effectiveness with PKR during the 5-year study period, we suggest that PKR should be considered the first choice for patients with late-stage isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.