Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Health Care Reform , National Health Programs/history , Adult , Chile , Delivery of Health Care/history , Female , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Humans , Income , Male , Middle Aged , Pregnancy , Social Security/history , Vital StatisticsABSTRACT
AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of chest physiotherapy (CPT), which provides slow and long expiratory flow and assisted cough techniques, in infants receiving outpatient care for acute wheezing episodes. METHODS: Forty-eight infants with moderate acute wheezing episodes were randomised to receive either salbutamol MDI with CPT (n = 25) or without CPT (n = 23). The clinical score and SpO2 levels were recorded, before and after treatment, in a blinded design. The primary outcome was discharge after the first hour of treatment: clinical score ≤5/12 and SpO2 ≥ 93%. Secondary outcomes were the number of admissions to hospital after the second hour, use of oral corticosteroid bursts and admissions to hospital on day seven. RESULTS: There were no differences between children with and without CPT in discharge rate (92% vs. 87%), clinical score (median [IQR]: 2.8 [2.2-3.3] vs. 3.4 [2.8-4.1]) and SpO2 = (96.4 [95.7-97.1] vs. 96.0 [94.9-96.5]) after the first hour of treatment or in the number of hospital admissions after the second hour. No differences were observed at days seven and 28 following treatment. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of clinical benefits from these specific CPT techniques for infants receiving outpatient care for acute wheezing episodes.
Subject(s)
Albuterol/therapeutic use , Ambulatory Care/methods , Bronchodilator Agents/therapeutic use , Physical Therapy Modalities , Respiratory Sounds , Respiratory Tract Diseases/therapy , Acute Disease , Female , Humans , Infant , Logistic Models , Male , Single-Blind Method , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJETIVO: Presentar una metodología para la evaluación de la relación costo-efectividad en centros de atención primaria de salud (APS) a partir del modelo de atención familiar promovido en Chile y evaluar los resultados de los dos primeros años de funcionamiento del primer centro piloto que funciona bajo este nuevo modelo de atención primaria. MÉTODOS. Se realizó un estudio de costo-efectividad, con una perspectiva social y un horizonte temporal de un año. Para comparar el centro intervenido (universitario) con el centro de control (municipal) se construyó el índice compuesto de calidad de los centros de salud familiar (ICCESFAM), que combina indicadores técnicos y la percepción de los usuarios de los centros en seis dimensiones: accesibilidad, continuidad de la atención médica, enfoque clínico preventivo y promocional, resolutividad, participación, y enfoque biopsicosocial y familiar. Para calcular los costos se tomó en cuenta el gasto en los centros, el ahorro producido al resto del sistema sanitario y el gasto de bolsillo de los pacientes. Se estimó la razón costo-efectividad incremental (RCEI) y se realizó un análisis de sensibilidad. RESULTADOS: El centro de salud universitario resultó 13,4 por ciento más caro (US$ 8,93 anuales adicionales por inscrito) y más efectivo (ICCESFAM 13,3 por ciento mayor) que el municipal. Estos resultados hacen que la RCEI sea de US$ 0,67 por cada punto porcentual adicional que aumenta el ICCESFAM. CONCLUSIONES: Según el modelo elaborado de evaluación de centros de APS, los centros que siguen el modelo de salud familiar chileno son más efectivos, tanto por sus indicadores técnicos como por la valoración de sus usuarios, que los centros de APS tradicionales.
OBJECTIVE: Present a methodology for evaluating cost-effectiveness in primary health care centers (PHCs) in Chile based on the family health care model promoted in Chile and evaluate the results of the first two years of operation of the first pilot center to work under this new primary-care model. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness study with a social perspective and a one-year time frame was conducted. In order to compare the university health center in question with the control (a municipal health center), a Family Health Center Composite Quality Index (FHCCQI) was devised. It combines technical indicators and user perceptions of the health centers in six areas: access, continuity of medical care, a preventive and promotional clinical approach, problem-solving capability, participation, and a biopsychosocial and family approach. In order to calculate the costs, the centers' expenses, the savings realized in the rest of the health system, and patients' out-of-pocket expenditures were considered. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICR) was estimated and a sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The university health center was 13.4 percent more expensive (an additional US$ 8.93 per annum per enrollee) and was more effective (FHCCQI 13.3 percent greater) than the municipal one. Accordingly, the ICR is US$ 0.67 for each additional percentage point of FHCCQI increase. CONCLUSIONS: According to the PHC evaluation model that was implemented, the centers that follow the Chilean family health care model are more effective than traditional PHC centers, as measured by both technical indicators and user ratings.
Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods , Health Facilities/economics , Primary Health Care/economics , ChileABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Present a methodology for evaluating cost-effectiveness in primary health care centers (PHCs) in Chile based on the family health care model promoted in Chile and evaluate the results of the first two years of operation of the first pilot center to work under this new primary-care model. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness study with a social perspective and a one-year time frame was conducted. In order to compare the university health center in question with the control (a municipal health center), a Family Health Center Composite Quality Index (FHCCQI) was devised. It combines technical indicators and user perceptions of the health centers in six areas: access, continuity of medical care, a preventive and promotional clinical approach, problem-solving capability, participation, and a biopsychosocial and family approach. In order to calculate the costs, the centers' expenses, the savings realized in the rest of the health system, and patients' out-of-pocket expenditures were considered. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICR) was estimated and a sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The university health center was 13.4% more expensive (an additional US$8.93 per annum per enrollee) and was more effective (FHCCQI 13.3% greater) than the municipal one. Accordingly, the ICR is US$0.67 for each additional percentage point of FHCCQI increase. CONCLUSIONS: According to the PHC evaluation model that was implemented, the centers that follow the Chilean family health care model are more effective than traditional PHC centers, as measured by both technical indicators and user ratings.
