Cost minimization analysis for basic life support.

BACKGROUND: The use of online teaching methodology for basic life support (BLS) courses is progressively increasing. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to verify whether the blended-learning methodology (virtual course with a short face-to-face complement) was more efficient than a course that followed the classical or face-to-face methodology in our university. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost minimization analysis was performed for two BLS and automatic external defibrillation (AED) courses, one of which was conducted face-to-face (Control Group) and the second of which was conducted via blended-learning (Experimental Group). The courses had the same duration and content according to the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) recommendations. In the face-to-face course, direct costs were considered those generated by the faculty and derived from the academic activity. Other costs were those generated by the use of classrooms and the amortization of manikins and AED training. The perspective of the analysis was that of the provider, the academic, and a time horizon of six months. The costs are expressed in € 2017. RESULTS: The savings of a course in BLS-AED based on the blended-learning methodology calculated for a total of 160 university nursing and medical students were € 2328.8 for the first year of its implementation and € 9048.8 for its second edition compared with the same course using a face-to-face methodology. CONCLUSIONS: The blended-learning methodology supposes a cost savings for BLS-AED courses, mainly due to the reduction of expenses of the teaching staff. The blended-learning methodology seems to be more efficient than the face-to-face methodology.

[Controversial issues in economic evaluation (I): perspective and costs of Health Care interventions]. / Cuestiones controvertidas en evaluación económica (I): perspectiva y costes de intervenciones sanitarias.

Economic evaluation of health care interventions has experienced a strong growth over the past decade and is increasingly present as a support tool in the decisions making process on public funding of health services and pricing in European countries. A necessary element using them is that agents that perform economic evaluations have minimum rules with agreement on methodological aspects. Although there are methodological issues in which there is a high degree of consensus, there are others in which there is no such degree of agreement being closest to the normative field or have experienced significant methodological advances in recent years. In this first article of a series of three, we will discuss on the perspective of analysis and assessment of costs in economic evaluation of health interventions using the technique Metaplan. Finally, research lines are proposed to overcome the identified discrepancies.

Cuestiones controvertidas en Evaluación Económica (I): perspectiva y costes de intervenciones sanitarias / Controversial Issues in Economic Evaluation (I): Perspective and Costs of Health Care Interventions

La evaluación económica de intervenciones sanitarias ha experimentado un fuerte desarrollo en la última década y cada vez está más presente como herramienta de apoyo en la toma decisiones sobre financiación pública de prestaciones sanitarias y fijación de precio en Europa. Un elemento necesario para su utilización es que los agentes que realizan las evaluaciones económicas cuenten con unas reglas mínimas de acuerdo sobre aspectos metodológicos. Aunque en algunos de ellos existe un alto grado de consenso, en otros no, por ser más cercanos al ámbito normativo o por haber experimentado avances metodológicos notables en los últimos años. En este primer artículo, de una serie de tres, debatiremos sobre la perspectiva de análisis y la valoración de los costes en evaluación económica de intervenciones sanitarias empleando la técnica Metaplan. Finalmente, se proponen líneas de investigación para tratar de superar las discrepancias identificadas (AU)

Economic evaluation of health care interventions has experienced a strong growth over the past decade and is increasingly present as a support tool in the decisions making process on public funding of health services and pricing in European countries. A necessary element using them is that agents that perform economic evaluations have minimum rules with agreement on methodological aspects. Although there are methodological issues in which there is a high degree of consensus, there are others in which there is no such degree of agreement being closest to the normative field or have experienced significant methodological advances in recent years. In this first article of a series of three, we will discuss on the perspective of analysis and assessment of costs in economic evaluation of health interventions using the technique Metaplan. Finally, research lines are proposed to overcome the identified discrepancies (AU)

Cost-effectiveness of malaria intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi) in Mozambique and the United Republic of Tanzania.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of malaria intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi) using sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP). METHODS: In two previous IPTi trials in Ifakara (United Republic of Tanzania) and Manhiça (Mozambique), SP was administered three times to infants before 9 months of age through the Expanded Programme on Immunization. Based on the efficacy results of the intervention and on malaria incidence in the target population, an estimate was made of the number of clinical malaria episodes prevented. This number and an assumed case-fatality rate of 1.57% were used, in turn, to estimate the number of disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted and the number of deaths averted. The cost of the intervention, including start-up and recurrent costs, was then assessed on the basis of these figures. FINDINGS: The cost per clinical episode of malaria averted was US$ 1.57 (range: US$ 0.8-4.0) in Ifakara and US$ 4.73 (range: US$ 1.7-30.3) in Manhiça; the cost per DALY averted was US$ 3.7 (range: US$ 1.6-12.2) in Ifakara and US$ 11.2 (range: US$ 3.6-92.0) in Manhiça; and the cost per death averted was US$ 100.2 (range: US$ 43.0-330.9) in Ifakara and US$ 301.1 (range: US$ 95.6-2498.4) in Manhiça. CONCLUSION: From the health system and societal perspectives, IPTi with SP is expected to produce health improvements in a cost-effective way. From an economic perspective, it offers good value for money for public health programmes.