Explore the vast range of titles available.

The United States spends greatly more per person on health care than any other country but the evidence shows that care is often poor and inappropriate. Despite expenditures of 1.7 trillion dollars in 2003, and growing substantially each year, services remain fragmented and poorly coordinated, and more than 46 million people are uninsured. Why can't America, with its vast array of resources, sophisticated technologies, superior medical research and educational institutions, and talented health care professionals, produce higher quality care and better outcomes?In The Truth about Health Care, David Mechanic explains how health care in America has evolved in ways that favor a myriad of economic, professional, and political interests over those of patients. While money has always had a place in medical care, \"big money\" and the quest for profits has become dominant, making meaningful reforms difficult to achieve. Mechanic acknowledges that railing against these influences, which are here to stay, can achieve only so much. Instead, he asks whether it is possible to convert what is best about health care in America into a well functioning system that better serves the entire population.Bringing decades of experience as an active health policy participant, researcher, teacher, and consultant to the public and private sectors, Mechanic examines the strengths and weaknesses of our system and how it has evolved. He pays special attention to areas often neglected in policy discussions, such as the loss of public trust in medicine, the tragic state of long-term care, and the relationship of mental health to health care.For anyone who has been frustrated by uncoordinated health networks, insurance denials, and other obstacles to obtaining appropriate care, this book will provide a refreshing and frank look at the system's current and future dilemmas. Mechanic's thoughtful roadmap describes how health plans, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and consumer groups can work together to improve access, quality, fairness, and health outcomes in America.About the Author:

Gait Problems in Cerebral Palsy focuses on the surgical care and postoperative rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy as they grow through early and late childhood, and adolescence. The book describes the neurologic and musculoskeletal issues that are frequently treated in children in each age group. It describes how to evaluate the children, create problem lists, make treatment choices, carry out interventions, and provide rehabilitation therapies. It: Emphasizes the critical importance of dialogue with children and parents, and age-related data derived from the GOAL questionnaire is provided to focus insight on the priorities of patients and families. Presents descriptions of patient and family priorities, decision-making and surgical techniques, and rehabilitation therapies for each age group. Offers consistent chapter structures that emphasize clarity and brevity, supplemented by figures and tables. Highlights the importance of building collaborative multidisciplinary clinical teams. Includes access to numerous videos which demonstrate clinical teams at work with patients, surgical techniques, and rehabilitation activities.   Essential reading for orthopaedic surgeons, physiatrists, physical therapists, kinesiologists, gait analysis experts, and other members of the interdisciplinary team involved.  

Over the period 1987–1991 an inter-disciplinary five-country group developed the EuroQol instrument, a five-dimensional three-level generic measure subsequently termed the ‘EQ-5D’. It was designed to measure and value health status. The salient features of its development and its consolidation and expansion are discussed. Initial expansion came, in particular, in the form of new language versions. Their development raised translation and semantic issues, experience with which helped feed into the design of two further instruments, the EQ-5D-5L and the youth version EQ-5D-Y. The expanded usage across clinical programmes, disease and condition areas, population surveys, patient-reported outcomes, and value sets is outlined. Valuation has been of continued relevance for the Group as this has allowed its instruments to be utilised as part of the economic appraisal of health programmes and their incorporation into health technology assessments. The future of the Group is considered in the context of: (1) its scientific strategy, (2) changes in the external environment affecting the demand for EQ-5D, and (3) a variety of issues it is facing in the context of the design of the instrument, its use in health technology assessment, and potential new uses for EQ-5D outside of clinical trials and technology appraisal.

Background Whilst interest in efficient trial design has grown with the use of electronic health records (EHRs) to collect trial outcomes, practical challenges remain. Commonly raised concerns often revolve around data availability, data quality and issues with data validation. This study aimed to assess the agreement between data collected on clinical trial participants from different sources to provide empirical evidence on the utility of EHRs for follow-up in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods This retrospective, participant-level data utility comparison study was undertaken using data collected as part of a UK primary care-based, randomised controlled trial (OPTiMISE). The primary outcome measure was the recording of all-cause hospitalisation or mortality within 3 years post-randomisation and was assessed across (1) Coded primary care data; (2) Coded-plus-free-text primary care data; and (3) Coded secondary care and mortality data. Agreement levels across data sources were assessed using Fleiss’ Kappa (K). Kappa statistics were interpreted using an established framework, categorising agreement strength as follows: <0 (poor), 0.00–0.20 (slight), 0.21–0.40 (fair), 0.41–0.60 (moderate), 0.61–0.80 (substantial), and 0.81–1.00 (almost perfect) agreement. The impact of using different data sources to determine trial outcomes was assessed by replicating the trial’s original analyses. Results Almost perfect agreement was observed for mortality outcome across the three data sources (K = 0.94, 95%CI 0.91–0.98). Fair agreement (weak consistency) was observed for hospitalisation outcomes, including all-cause hospitalisation or mortality (K = 0.35, 95%CI 0.28–0.42), emergency hospitalisation (K = 0.39, 95%CI 0.33–0.46), and hospitalisation or mortality due to cardiovascular disease (K = 0.32, 95%CI 0.19–0.45). The overall trial results remained consistent across data sources for the primary outcome, albeit with varying precision. Conclusion Significant discrepancies according to data sources were observed in recording of secondary care outcomes. Investigators should be cautious when choosing which data source(s) to use to measure outcomes in trials. Future work on linking participant-level data across healthcare settings should consider the variations in diagnostic coding practices. Standardised definitions for outcome measures when using healthcare systems data and using data from different data sources for cross-checking and verification should be encouraged.

To estimate the prevalence of nonadherence to treatment and its relationship with social support and social context in patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy followed-up in primary care. This was an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study with an analytical approach. A total of 593 patients between 65-74 years of age with multimorbidity (≥3 diseases) and polypharmacy (≥5 drugs) during the last three months and agreed to participate in the MULTIPAP Study. The main variable was adherence (Morisky-Green). The predictors were social support (structural support and functional support (DUFSS)); sociodemographic variables; indicators of urban objective vulnerability; health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L-VAS & QALY); and clinical variables. Descriptive, bivariate and multivariate analyses with logistic regression models and robust estimators were performed. Four out of ten patients were nonadherent, 47% had not completed primary education, 28.7% had an income ≤1050 €/month, 35% reported four or more IUVs, and the average perceived health-related quality of life (HRQOL) EQ-5D-5L-VAS was 65.5. The items that measure functional support, with significantly different means between nonadherent and adherent patients were receiving love and affection (-0.23; 95%CI: -0.40;-0.06), help when ill (-0.25; 95%CI: -0.42;-0.08), useful advice (-0.20; 95%CI: -0.37;-0.02), social invitations (-0.22; 95%CI:-0.44;-0.01), and recognition (-0.29; 95%CI:-0.50;-0.08). Factors associated with nonadherence were belonging to the medium vs. low tertile of functional support (0.62; 95%CI: 0.42;0.94), reporting less than four IUVs (0.69; 95%CI: 0.46;1.02) and higher HRQOL perception (0.98; 95%CI: 0.98;0.99). Among patients 65-74 years of age with multimorbidity and polypharmacy, lower functional support was related to nonadherence to treatment. The nonadherence decreased in those patients with higher functional support, lower urban vulnerability and higher perceived health status according to the visual analog scale of health-related quality of life.

Factoring health and related costs into decision making is essential to confronting the nation's health problems and enhancing public well-being. Some policies and programs historically not recognized as relating to health are believed or known to have important health consequences. For example, public health has been linked to an array of policies that determine the quality and location of housing, availability of public transportation, land use and street connectivity, agricultural practices and the availability of various types of food, and development and location of businesses and industry. Improving Health in the United States: The Role of Health Impact Assessment offers guidance to officials in the public and private sectors on conducting HIAs to evaluate public health consequences of proposed decisions-such as those to build a major roadway, plan a city's growth, or develop national agricultural policies-and suggests actions that could minimize adverse health impacts and optimize beneficial ones. Several approaches could be used to incorporate aspects of health into decision making, but HIA holds particular promise because of its applicability to a broad array of programs, consideration of both adverse and beneficial health effects, ability to consider and incorporate various types of evidence, and engagement of communities and stakeholders in a deliberative process. The report notes that HIA should not be assumed to be the best approach to every health policy question but rather should be seen as part of a spectrum of public health and policy-oriented approaches. The report presents a six-step framework for conducting HIA of proposed policies, programs, plans, and projects at federal, state, tribal, and local levels, including within the private sector. In addition, the report identifies several challenges to the successful use of HIA, such as balancing the need to provide timely information with the realities of varying data quality, producing quantitative estimates of health effects, and engaging stakeholders.

Context: In 2008, researchers at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) described the Triple Aim as simultaneously \"improving the individual experience of care; improving the health of populations; and reducing the per capita costs of care for populations.\" IHI and its close colleagues had determined that both individual and societal changes were needed. Methods: In 2007, IHI began recruiting organizations from around the world to participate in a collaborative to implement what became known as the Triple Aim. The 141 participating organizations included health care systems, hospitals, health care insurance companies, and others closely tied to health care. In addition, key groups outside the health care system were represented, such as public health agencies, social services groups, and community coalitions. This collaborative provided a structure for observational research. By noting the contrasts between the contexts and structures of those sites in the collaborative that progressed and those that did not, we were able to develop an ex post theory of what is needed for an organization or community to successfully pursue the Triple Aim. Findings: Drawing on our 7 years of experience, we describe the 3 major principles that guided the organizations and communities working on the Triple Aim: creating the right foundation for population management, managing services at scale for the population, and establishing a learning system to drive and sustain the work over time. Conclusions: The concept of the Triple Aim is now widely used, because of IHI's work with many organizations and also because of the adoption of the Triple Aim as part of the national strategy for US health care, developed during the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Even those organizations working on the Triple Aim before IHI coined the term found our concept to be useful because it helped them think about all 3 dimensions at once and organize their work around them.