Dataset Information

A systematic review of whole disease models for informing healthcare resource allocation decisions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Whole disease models (WDM) are large-scale, system-level models which can evaluate multiple decision questions across an entire care pathway. Whilst this type of model can offer several advantages as a platform for undertaking economic analyses, the availability and quality of existing WDMs is unknown.

Objectives

This systematic review aimed to identify existing WDMs to explore which disease areas they cover, to critically assess the quality of these models and provide recommendations for future research.

Methods

An electronic search was performed on multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database) on 23rd July 2023. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) appraisal checklist for economic evaluations. Model characteristics were descriptively summarised.

Results

Forty-four WDMs were identified, of which thirty-two were developed after 2010. The main disease areas covered by existing WDMs are heart disease, cancer, acquired immune deficiency syndrome and metabolic disease. The quality of included WDMs is generally low. Common limitations included failure to consider the harms and costs of adverse events (AEs) of interventions, lack of probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and poor reporting.

Conclusions

There has been an increase in the number of WDMs since 2010. However, their quality is generally low which means they may require significant modification before they could be re-used, such as modelling AEs of interventions and incorporation of PSA. Sufficient details of the WDMs need to be reported to allow future reuse/adaptation.

SUBMITTER: Jin H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10501624 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of whole disease models for informing healthcare resource allocation decisions.

Jin Huajie H Tappenden Paul P Ling Xiaoxiao X Robinson Stewart S Byford Sarah S

PloS one 20230914 9

<h4>Background</h4>Whole disease models (WDM) are large-scale, system-level models which can evaluate multiple decision questions across an entire care pathway. Whilst this type of model can offer several advantages as a platform for undertaking economic analyses, the availability and quality of existing WDMs is unknown.<h4>Objectives</h4>This systematic review aimed to identify existing WDMs to explore which disease areas they cover, to critically assess the quality of these models and provide ...[more]

PMID: 37708188

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIncreased knowledge of the temporal patterns in the distribution of trauma admissions could be beneficial to staffing and resource allocation efforts. However, little work has been done to understand how this distribution varies based on patient acuity, trauma mechanism or need for intervention. We hypothesize that temporal patterns exist in the distribution of trauma admissions, and that deep patterns exist when traumas are analyzed by their type and severity.Study designWe conducted a cross-sectional observational study of adult patient flow at a level one trauma center over three years, 7/1/2013-6/30/2016. Primary thermal injuries were excluded. Frequency analysis was performed for patients grouped by ED disposition and mechanism against timing of admission; in subgroup analysis additional exclusion criteria were imposed.Results10,684 trauma contacts were analyzed. Trauma contacts were more frequent on Saturdays and Sundays than on weekdays (p<0.001). Peak arrival time was centered around evening shift change (6-7pm), but differed based on ED disposition: OR and ICU or Step-Down admissions (p = 0.0007), OR and floor admissions (p<0.0001), and ICU or Step-Down and floor admissions (p<0.0001). Step-Down and ICU arrival times (p = 0.42) were not different. Penetrating injuries peaked later than blunt (p<0.0001). Trauma varies throughout the year; we establish a high incidence trauma season (April to late October). Different mechanisms have varying dependence upon season; Motorcycle crashes (MCCs) have the greatest dependence.ConclusionWe identify new patterns in the temporal and seasonal variation of trauma and of specific mechanisms of injury, including the novel findings that 1) penetrating trauma tends to present at later times than blunt, and 2) critically ill patients requiring an OR tend to present later than those who are less acute and require an ICU or Step-Down unit. These patients present later than those who are admitted to the floor. Penetrating trauma patients arriving later than blunt may be the underlying reason why operative patients arrive later than other patients.

Project description:Introduction: Resource trade-offs are a universal feature of decision-making in healthcare. Public funding for home care is an example of a complex resource allocation decision, requiring balance between the needs of the individual and the capacity of the welfare system to meet those needs across the population. Under consumer-directed care policies, responsibility for resource allocation decisions rests with the care recipient, but there is no existing measure of allocative efficiency resulting from these consumer-led decisions. Our research considers resource allocation decisions by home care package recipients under consumer-directed care and evaluates the consistency of consumer-directed resource allocation with medically identified recommendations. Method: Retrospective cohort analysis of twenty home care package resource allocations made by home care package recipients in South-East Queensland, compared to associated medically identified needs and discussions with a potential service provider. Findings: Resource allocation decisions in the Australian home care setting are complex, multi-faceted, and made in highly uncertain environments. There are significant differences between services and equipment recommendations made by assessment teams, service providers, and home care recipient choices. Discussion: Awareness of the decision-making process and resulting decisions provides a foundation for future research to simplify decision-making for home care package recipients without sacrificing autonomy, leading to improved resource allocation efficiency and home care program outcomes. Conclusion: Consumer-directed care is a globally popular policy position to allocate public funds related to health care needs, despite uncertainty around the impact of this policy on program outcomes. Our analysis suggests further understanding of factors influencing resource allocation decisions is needed to define appropriate supports for effective decision-making in home care resource allocation, and further research effort is required to determine efficient resource allocation to inform policy changes, irrespective of the decision-maker.

Project description:BackgroundImplementing evidence into clinical practice is a key focus of healthcare improvements to reduce unwarranted variation. Dissemination of evidence-based recommendations and knowledge brokering have emerged as potential strategies to achieve evidence implementation by influencing resource allocation decisions. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of these two research implementation strategies to facilitate evidence-informed healthcare management decisions for the provision of inpatient weekend allied health services.Methods and findingsThis multicentre, single-blinded (data collection and analysis), three-group parallel cluster randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation was conducted in Australian and New Zealand hospitals between February 2018 and January 2020. Clustering and randomisation took place at the organisation level where weekend allied health staffing decisions were made (e.g., network of hospitals or single hospital). Hospital wards were nested within these decision-making structures. Three conditions were compared over a 12-month period: (1) usual practice waitlist control; (2) dissemination of written evidence-based practice recommendations; and (3) access to a webinar-based knowledge broker in addition to the recommendations. The primary outcome was the alignment of weekend allied health provision with practice recommendations at the cluster and ward levels, addressing the adoption, penetration, and fidelity to the recommendations. The secondary outcome was mean hospital length of stay at the ward level. Outcomes were collected at baseline and 12 months later. A total of 45 clusters (n = 833 wards) were randomised to either control (n = 15), recommendation (n = 16), or knowledge broker (n = 14) conditions. Four (9%) did not provide follow-up data, and no adverse events were recorded. No significant effect was found with either implementation strategy for the primary outcome at the cluster level (recommendation versus control β 18.11 [95% CI -8,721.81 to 8,758.02] p = 0.997; knowledge broker versus control β 1.24 [95% CI -6,992.60 to 6,995.07] p = 1.000; recommendation versus knowledge broker β -9.12 [95% CI -3,878.39 to 3,860.16] p = 0.996) or ward level (recommendation versus control β 0.01 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.75] p = 0.983; knowledge broker versus control β -0.12 [95% CI -0.54 to 0.30] p = 0.581; recommendation versus knowledge broker β -0.19 [-1.04 to 0.65] p = 0.651). There was no significant effect between strategies for the secondary outcome at ward level (recommendation versus control β 2.19 [95% CI -1.36 to 5.74] p = 0.219; knowledge broker versus control β -0.55 [95% CI -1.16 to 0.06] p = 0.075; recommendation versus knowledge broker β -3.75 [95% CI -8.33 to 0.82] p = 0.102). None of the control or knowledge broker clusters transitioned to partial or full alignment with the recommendations. Three (20%) of the clusters who only received the written recommendations transitioned from nonalignment to partial alignment. Limitations include underpowering at the cluster level sample due to the grouping of multiple geographically distinct hospitals to avoid contamination.ConclusionsOwing to a lack of power at the cluster level, this trial was unable to identify a difference between the knowledge broker strategy and dissemination of recommendations compared with usual practice for the promotion of evidence-informed resource allocation to inpatient weekend allied health services. Future research is needed to determine the interactions between different implementation strategies and healthcare contexts when translating evidence into healthcare practice.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000029291.

Project description:BackgroundProactive integrated virtual healthcare resource (VHR) use can improve efficiency, maximize resource capacity for delivering optimal coordinated care and improve patient outcomes. Proactive integrated VHR use is vital for delivering high quality care. Our objectives were to identify proactive integrated VHR use among primary care teams, best practices and targeted implementation strategies to promote proactive integrated VHR use.MethodsThis is a mixed-method descriptive study. We employed a community-based participatory approach to collect data and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to analyze and contextualize findings. A cross-sectional sample of primary care team members (n = 65) from a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center participated in focus groups, follow-up interviews (n = 16), and respond to self-report surveys. Operational subject matter experts (n = 15) participated in informant interviews.ResultsSurvey data described current use and factors that influenced singular VHR use and were convergent with qualitative findings. Focus group and interview data described no evidence of proactive integrated VHR use. Differences and similarities were identified between both utilization groups, such as facilitators and barriers, recommendations, patient education and preferred implementation strategies. All groups reported issues around VHR availability knowledge and access and functionality. Participants identified the need for best practices that are specific to care tasks and performance measures. Expert informant interviews identified a list of VHR tools that could be proactively integrated across the healthcare continuum.ConclusionsHealth systems are leveraging technologies to proactively integrate VHR to maximize information exchange, clinical decision support and patient engagement. VHR is critical during global pandemics, such as COVID-19, to maintain access to care coordination and delivery while abiding by public health recommendations. Though recent requirements for reducing contact create an intrinsic motivation, cultural change through education and best practices of proactive integrated use across the healthcare continuum is needed to create a culture of VHR super users.

Project description:Cost-effectiveness analysis, routinely used in health care to inform funding decisions, can be extended to consider impact on health inequality. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) incorporates socioeconomic differences in model parameters to capture how an intervention would affect both overall population health and differences in health between population groups. In DCEA, uncertainty analysis can consider the decision uncertainty around on both impacts (i.e., the probability that an intervention will increase overall health and the probability that it will reduce inequality). Using an illustrative example assessing smoking cessation interventions (2 active interventions and a "no-intervention" arm), we demonstrate how the uncertainty analysis could be conducted in DCEA to inform policy recommendations. We perform value of information (VOI) analysis and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to identify what additional evidence would add most value to the level of confidence in the DCEA results. The analyses were conducted for both national and local authority-level decisions to explore whether the conclusions about decision uncertainty based on the national-level estimates could inform local policy. For the comparisons between active interventions and "no intervention," there was no uncertainty that providing the smoking cessation intervention would increase overall health but increase inequality. However, there was uncertainty in the direction of both impacts when comparing between the 2 active interventions. VOI and ANCOVA show that uncertainty in socioeconomic differences in intervention effectiveness and uptake contributes most to the uncertainty in the DCEA results. This suggests potential value of collecting additional evidence on intervention-related inequalities for this evaluation. We also found different levels of decision uncertainty between settings, implying that different types and levels of additional evidence are required for decisions in different localities.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of whole disease models for informing healthcare resource allocation decisions.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A systematic review of whole disease models for informing healthcare resource allocation decisions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets