Preferences in the Design and Delivery of Neurodevelopmental Follow-Up Care for Children: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

Neurodevelopmental disorders are a significant cause of morbidity. Early detection of neurodevelopmental delay is essential for timely diagnosis and intervention, and it is therefore important to understand the preferences of parents and clinicians for engaging with neurodevelopmental surveillance and follow-up care. Discrete choice experiment (DCE) may be an appropriate method for quantifying these preferences. This review systematically examined how DCEs have been designed and delivered in studies examining neurodevelopmental care of children and identified the preferred attributes that have been reported. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were systematically searched. Studies were included if they used DCE to elicit preferences for a neurodevelopmental follow-up program for children. Two independent reviewers conducted the title and abstract and full-text screening. Risk of bias was assessed using a DCE-specific checklist. Findings were presented using a narrative synthesis. A total of 6618 records were identified and 16 papers were included. Orthogonal (n=5) and efficient (n=5) experimental designs were common. There was inconsistent reporting of design-related features. Analysis was primarily completed using mixed logit (n=6) or multinomial logit (n=3) models. Several key attributes for neurodevelopmental follow-up care were identified including social, behavioral and emotional support, therapy, waiting time, and out-of-pocket costs. DCE has been successfully used as a preference elicitation method for neurodevelopmental-related care. There is scope for improvement in the design and analysis of DCE in this field. Nonetheless, attributes identified in these studies are likely to be important considerations in the design and implementation of programs for neurodevelopmental care.

Hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation for coronary artery disease in Australia: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traditional cardiac rehabilitation programs are centre-based and clinically supervised, with their safety and effectiveness well established. Notwithstanding the established benefits, cardiac rehabilitation remains underutilised. A possible alternative would be a hybrid approach where both centre-based and tele-based methods are combined to deliver cardiac rehabilitation to eligible patients. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness of a hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation and if it should be recommended to be implemented in the Australian context. METHODS: Following a comprehensive literature search, we chose the Telerehab III trial intervention that investigated the effectiveness of a long-term hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation program. We developed a decision analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the Telerehab III trial using a Markov process. The model included stable cardiac disease and hospitalisation health states and simulations were run using one-month cycles over a five-year time horizon. The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at $AU 28,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). For the base analysis, we assumed that 80% completed the programme. We tested the robustness of the results using probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Telerehab III intervention was more effective but more costly and was not cost-effective, at a threshold of $28,000 per QALY. For every 1,000 patients who undergo cardiac rehabilitation, employing the telerehabilitation intervention would cost $650,000 more, and 5.7 QALYs would be gained, over five years, compared to current practice. Under probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the intervention was cost-effective in only 18% of simulations. Similarly, if the intervention compliance was increased to 90%, it was still unlikely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation is highly unlikely to be cost-effective compared to the current practice in Australia. Exploration of alternative models of delivering cardiac telerehabilitation is still required. The results presented in this study are useful for policymakers wanting to make informed decisions about investment in hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation programs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Screening to Identify Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Screening for Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is recommended for people aged above 65 years. Screening for AF in asymptomatic individuals can be beneficial by enabling earlier diagnosis and the commencement of interventions to reduce the risk of early events, thus improving patient outcomes. This study systematically reviews the literature about the cost-effectiveness of various screening methods for previously undiagnosed AF. METHODS: Four databases were searched to identify articles that are cost-effectiveness studies conducted on screening for AF published from January 2000 to August 2022. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist was used to assess the quality of the selected studies. A previously published approach was used to assess the usefulness of each study for health policy makers. RESULTS: The database search yielded 799 results, with 26 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Articles were categorised into four subgroups: (i) population screening, (ii) opportunistic screening, (iii) targeted, and (iv) mixed methods of screening. Most of the studies screened adults ≥65 years of age. Most studies were performed from a 'health care payer perspective' and almost all studies used 'not screening' as a comparator. Almost all screening methods assessed were found to be cost-effective in comparison to 'not screening'. The reporting quality varied between 58% to 89%. The majority of the studies were found to be of limited usefulness for health policy makers, as none of the studies made any clear statements about policy change or implementation direction. CONCLUSION: All approaches of AF screening were found to be cost-effective compared with no screening, while opportunistic screening was found to be the optimal approach in some studies. However, screening for AF in asymptomatic individuals is context specific and likely to be cost-effective depending on the population screened, screening approach, frequency, and the duration of screening.