ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length; however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care. DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: The design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with < 60-day and ≥ 60-day prescriptions for five patient cohorts over an 11-year period from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Third, a decision model adapting three existing models to predict costs and effects of differing adherence levels associated with 28-day versus 3-month prescriptions in three clinical scenarios. REVIEW METHODS: In the systematic review, from 15,257 unique citations, 54 full-text papers were reviewed and 16 studies were included, five of which were abstracts and one of which was an extended conference abstract. None was a randomised controlled trial: 11 were retrospective cohort studies, three were cross-sectional surveys and two were cost studies. No information on health outcomes was available. RESULTS: An exploratory meta-analysis based on six retrospective cohort studies suggested that lower adherence was associated with 28-day prescriptions (standardised mean difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.65 to -0.26). The cost analysis showed that a statistically significant increase in medication waste was associated with longer prescription lengths. However, when accounting for dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescriptions were found to be cost saving compared with shorter prescriptions. Prescriber time was the largest component of the calculated cost savings to the NHS. The decision modelling suggested that, in all three clinical scenarios, longer prescription lengths were associated with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years. LIMITATIONS: The available evidence was found to be at a moderate to serious risk of bias. All of the studies were conducted in the USA, which was a cause for concern in terms of generalisability to the UK. No evidence of the direct impact of prescription length on health outcomes was found. The cost study could investigate prescriptions issued only; it could not assess patient adherence to those prescriptions. Additionally, the cost study was based on products issued only and did not account for underlying patient diagnoses. A lack of good-quality evidence affected our decision modelling strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of the evidence was poor, this study found that longer prescriptions may be less costly overall, and may be associated with better adherence than 28-day prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions being treated in primary care. FUTURE WORK: There is a need to more reliably evaluate the impact of differing prescription lengths on adherence, on patient health outcomes and on total costs to the NHS. The priority should be to identify patients with particular conditions or characteristics who should receive shorter or longer prescriptions. To determine the need for any further research, an expected value of perfect information analysis should be performed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027042. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Subject(s)
Chronic Disease , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Drug Prescriptions/economics , Models, Economic , Technology Assessment, Biomedical , Treatment Outcome , Humans , Primary Health Care , Time FactorsABSTRACT
The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) funds and supports world-leading clinical and applied health and social care research, as well as research infrastructure in the NHS. Providing £1 billion of funding each year, NIHR aims to: drive the faster translation of new treatments, technologies and diagnostics to improve outcomes for health and care services; promote the wealth of the nation, including via inward investment from the health research community; pull basic science discoveries through into tangible benefits for patients and the public; and provide research evidence to support more effective and cost-effective NHS delivery. To mark its tenth anniversary, the Department of Health commissioned the Policy Research in Science and Medicine unit to consider the question: "What are the ways in which NIHR has benefited the health research landscape in the past ten years?" This study identifies and celebrates 100 examples of positive change resulting from NIHR's support of research. A synthesis of 100 case studies is provided, which highlights the benefits and wider impacts of research, capacity building, and other activities undertaken with NIHR's support since its creation in 2006. The study concludes with a reflection of how the NIHR has transformed R&D in and for the NHS and wider health service, and the people they serve. The study draws together---for the first time---examples of the breadth of NIHR's impacts in a single resource. It will be of interest to healthcare professionals involved in research, academics working in health and social care, and members of the public wishing to understand the value of research in the NHS and the wider health and care system.
ABSTRACT
In early 2012, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) leadership programme was re-commissioned for a further three years following an evaluation by RAND Europe. During this new phase of the programme, we conducted a real-time evaluation, the aim of which was to allow for reflection on and adjustment of the programme on an on-going basis as events unfold. This approach also allowed for participants on the programme to contribute to and positively engage in the evaluation. The study aimed to understand the outputs and impacts from the programme, and to test the underlying assumptions behind the NIHR Leadership Programme as a science policy intervention. Evidence on outputs and impacts of the programme were collected around the motivations and expectations of participants, programme design and individual-, institutional- and system-level impacts.
ABSTRACT
This study examines the impacts arising from neuroscience and mental health research going back 20-25 years, and identifies attributes of the research, researchers or research setting that are associated with translation into patient benefit, in the particular case of schizophrenia. The study combined two methods: forward-tracing case studies to examine where scientific advances of 20 years ago have led to impact today; and backward-tracing perspectives to identify the research antecedents of today's interventions in schizophrenia. These research and impact trails are followed principally in Canada, the UK and the USA. The headline findings are as follows: The case studies and perspectives support the view that mental health research has led to a diverse and beneficial range of academic, health, social and economic impacts over the 20 years since the research was undertaken.Clinical research has had a larger impact on patient care than basic research has over the 20 years since the research was undertaken.Those involved in mental health research who work across boundaries are associated with wider health and social benefits.Committed individuals, motivated by patient need, who effectively champion research agendas and/or translation into practice are key in driving the development and implementation of interventions.This study provides an overview of the methods and presents the full set of findings, with the policy provocations they raise, and an emerging research agenda. It has been written for funders of biomedical and health research and health services, health researchers, and policymakers in those fields. It will also be of interest to those involved in research and impact evaluation.
ABSTRACT
Public Health England (PHE) commissioned RAND Europe to undertake a horizon scanning study exploring the future of public health and related scientific services. This work was intended to help inform thinking at the strategic level within PHE, firstly in relation to the wider vision of the Agency (which was only established in April 2013) and, secondly, in relation to the proposals for the creation of an integrated public health science hub. The study is based on a literature review, a brief Delphi exercise using the ExpertLens platform and key informant interviews with a range of PHE staff and external experts. It focuses on the different future public health science needs and the extent to which an integrated science hub could serve PHE as it evolves over the next twenty years. Thus, the study considers PHE's future remit and objectives in order that decisions about an integrated and co-located science hub be made in context and with reference to expert perceptions about the future.
ABSTRACT
The Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) supports drug discovery efforts through a unique, open access model of public-private collaboration. This study presents the results of an independent evaluation of the Structural Genomics Consortium, conducted by RAND Europe with the Institute on Governance. The evaluation aimed to establish the role of the SGC within the wider drug discovery and PPP landscape, assessing the merits of the SGC open access model relative to alternative models of funding R&D in this space, as well as the key trends and opportunities in the external environment that may impact on the future of the SGC. It also established the incentives and disincentives for investment, strengths and weaknesses of the SGC's model, and the opportunities and threats the SGC will face in the future. This enabled us to assess the most convincing arguments for funding the SGC at present; important trade-offs or limitations that should be addressed in moving towards the next funding phase; and whether funders are anticipating changes either to the SGC or the wider PPP landscape. Finally, we undertook a quantitative analysis to ascertain what judgements can be made about the SGC's past and current performance track record, before unpacking the role of the external environment and particular actors within the SGC in developing scenarios for the future.
ABSTRACT
This research is intended to help improve understanding of health research governance in the UK by exploring the regulatory practices and cultures in other countries and sectors. It is a comparative study of the practice of those who are subject to regulatory requirements in the health research, medical drugs, environmental and financial sectors. The research is informed by a review of a small subset of literature which is particularly relevant to this question, and focuses on different elements of regulation and regulatory governance for each of the different sectors.
ABSTRACT
Leadership is seen to be central to improving the quality of healthcare and existing research suggests that absence of leadership is related to poor quality and safety performance. Leadership training might therefore provide an important means through which to promote quality improvement and, more widely, performance within the healthcare environment. This article presents an evaluation of the Fellowships in Clinical Leadership Programme, which combines leadership training and quality improvement initiatives with the placement of temporary external clinical champions in Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust. We assessed impacts of the Programme on individual and organisational change, alongside core enablers and barriers for Programme success. Analyses drew on the principles of a theory-of-change-led realist evaluation, using logic modelling to specify the underlying causal mechanisms of the Programme. Data collection involved a stakeholder workshop, online questionnaires of programme participants, senior managers and support staff (n=114), and follow-up in-depth semi-structured interviews with a subsample of survey participants (n=15). We observed that the Programme had notable impacts at individual and organisational levels. Examples of individual impact included enhanced communication and negotiation skills or increased confidence as a result of multi-modal leadership training. At the organisational level, participants reported indications of behaviour change among staff, with evidence of spill-over effects to non-participants towards a greater focus on patient-centred care. Our findings suggest that there is potential for combined leadership training and quality improvement programmes to contribute to strengthening a culture of care quality in healthcare organisations. Our study provides useful insights into strategies seeking to achieve sustainable improvement in NHS organisations.
ABSTRACT
RAND Europe evaluated the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leadership Programme in an effort to help the English Department of Health consider the extent to which the programme has helped to foster NIHR's aims, extract lessons for the future, and develop plans for the next phase of the leadership programme. Successful delivery of high-quality health research requires not only an effective research base, but also a system of leadership supporting it. However, research leaders are not often given the opportunity, nor do they have the time, to attend formal leadership or management training programmes. This is unfortunate because research has shown that leadership training can have a hugely beneficial effect on an organisation. Therefore, the evaluation has a particular interest in understanding the role of the programme as a science policy intervention and will use its expertise in science policy analysis to consider this element alongside other, more traditional, measures of evaluation.
