ABSTRACT
The availability of new tools able to support patient monitoring and personalized care may substantially improve the quality of chronic disease management. A personalized healthcare pathway (PHP) has been developed for diabetes disease management and integrated into an information and communication technology system to accomplish a shift from organization-centered care to patient-centered care. A small-scale exploratory study was conducted to test the platform. Preliminary results are presented that shed light on how the PHP influences system usage and performance outcomes.
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/methods , Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Precision Medicine/methods , Telemedicine/methods , Adult , Chronic Disease/therapy , Feasibility Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of cement-less versus hybrid prostheses in total hip replacement (THR) in patients diagnosed with primary osteoarthritis. METHODS: Effectiveness data were obtained from the Emilia-Romagna Regional Registry on Orthopaedic Prosthesis (RIPO), which collects information on all orthopaedic intervention performed in Emilia-Romagna (41,199 total hip replacements performed from 2000 to 2007), and from which we obtained survival curves and transition probabilities for the cement-less and hybrid prostheses, respectively. Conversely, costs were derived from regional databases through a specific procedure, which allowed us to register individual component's costs for both primary and subsequent revision interventions. A specific Markov transition model was constructed in order to consider the 3 types of revisions that an implant could possibly undergo through its life-span: total, cup or stem, head insert or neck. The cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of cost per "revision-free" life year. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Considering a 70-y old patient undergoing THR, the cementless strategy resulted more effective but more costly than the hybrid solution, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of 2401.63 per revision-free life year. Following a deterministic sensitivity analysis, hybrid and cementless fixation showed, respectively, a dominance profile for patients older than 83 y and younger than 43 y, whereas for all ages in between, we report a progressive increase in the ICER of cementless prostheses. Our results proved to be robust, as underlined by the probabilistic sensitivity analysis performed using cost distributions.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/economics , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/methods , Models, Economic , Osteoarthritis/surgery , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bone Cements , Case-Control Studies , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Hip Prosthesis , Humans , Italy , Markov Chains , Middle Aged , Osteoarthritis/economics , Registries , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: When evaluating health technologies with insufficient scientific evidence, only innovative potentials can be assessed. A Regional policy initiative linking the governance of health innovations to the development of clinical research has been launched by the Region of Emilia Romagna Healthcare Authority. This program, aimed at enhancing the research capacity of health organizations, encourages the development of adoption plans that combine use in clinical practice along with experimental use producing better knowledge. Following the launch of this program we developed and propose a method that, by evaluating and ranking scientific uncertainty, identifies the moment (during the stages of the technology's development) where it would be sensible to invest in research resources and capacity to further its evaluation. The method was developed and tested during a research project evaluating robotic surgery. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel carried out a 5-step evaluation process: 1) definition of the technology's evidence profile and of all relevant clinical outcomes; 2) systematic review of scientific literature and outline of the uncertainty profile differentiating research results into steady, plausible, uncertain and unknown results; 3) definition of the acceptable level of uncertainty for investing research resources; 4) analysis of local context; 5) identification of clinical indications with promising clinical return. RESULTS: Outputs for each step of the evaluation process are: 1) evidence profile of the technology and systematic review; 2) uncertainty profile for each clinical indication; 3) exclusion of clinical indications not fulfilling the criteria of maximum acceptable risk; 4) mapping of local context; 5) recommendations for research.Outputs of the evaluation process for robotic surgery are described in the paper. CONCLUSIONS: This method attempts to rank levels of uncertainty in order to distinguish promising from hazardous clinical use and to outline a research course of action. Decision makers wishing to tie coverage policies to the development of scientific evidence could find this method a useful aid to the governance of innovations.
