The clinical and cost-effectiveness of elective primary total knee replacement with PAtellar Resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing: a pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled Trial (PART).

Aims: During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon's decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. Methods: The PAtellar Resurfacing Trial (PART) is a patient- and assessor-blinded multicentre, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary TKR for primary osteoarthritis at NHS hospitals in England, with an embedded internal pilot phase (ISRCTN 33276681). Participants will be randomly allocated intraoperatively on a 1:1 basis (stratified by centre and implant type (cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-sacrificing)) to always resurface or selectively resurface the patella, once the surgeon has confirmed sufficient patellar thickness for resurfacing and that constrained implants are not required. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures at three months, six months, and one year (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, OKS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and costs). Cost-effectiveness will be measured for the lifetime of the patient. Overall, 530 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a four-point difference in OKS between the groups one year after surgery, assuming up to 40% resurfacing in the selective group. Conclusion: The trial findings will provide evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. This will inform future NICE guidelines on primary TKR and the role of selective patellar resurfacing.

Acceptability of cervical cancer screening using visual inspection among women attending a childhood immunization clinic in Uganda.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the acceptability and performance of cervical cancer (CC) screening using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) integrated into a rural immunization clinic in Uganda. METHODS/MATERIALS: We conducted a cross-sectional pilot study in rural Uganda. We explored associations between women's characteristics and acceptance of VIA testing. We collected samples for Papanicolaou (Pap) smear testing in a random subset of women and used results from this test as a comparator for assessing VIA performance. RESULTS: We enrolled 625 women of whom 571 (91.4%) accepted and 54 (8.6%) refused CC screening. In the univariate model, age (Odds Ratio (OR)=1.10; p-value<0.001) and employment status (OR 2.00; p-value=0.019) were significantly associated with acceptance of VIA screening. In the multivariate model, no characteristic was independently associated with acceptance of VIA screening after adjusting for other factors. Compared to reference Pap smear, CC screening with VIA had a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 97.7%. CONCLUSIONS: CC screening with VIA is highly acceptable in the setting of rural immunization clinics in Uganda. Studies to assess which screening method would be the most effective and cost-effective are needed before stakeholders can consider adopting screening programs at scale.

Study protocol: incentives for increased access to comprehensive family planning for urban youth using a benefits card in Uganda. A quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: The use of contraception is one of the most cost-effective public health interventions and has the potential to prevent about 30% of maternal and 10% of child deaths in developing countries. Voucher-based initiatives for family planning are an effective and viable means of increasing contraceptive use. In this paper, we present a protocol for a pilot study of a novel incentive, a family planning benefits card (FPBC) program to increase uptake of family planning services among urban poor youth in Uganda while leveraging private sector funding. METHODS: The study employs both impact and health economic evaluation methods to assess the effect of the FPBC program. We propose a quasi-experimental study design with two separate pre- and post-samples to measure program effectiveness. The main outcome of the impact evaluation is the percentage change in the prevalence of modern contraceptive use and unmet need for contraception. We will also conduct model-based incremental cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses. The main outcomes of the economic evaluation are the cost per enrolled youth and cost per pregnancy averted, and cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted. We will also pilot a corporate social responsibility model of sponsorship for the FPBC program in partnership with local corporations. Budget impact analysis will examine the potential affordability of scaling up the FPBC program and the fiscal implications of this scale up to the corporate social responsibility (CSR) budgets of partner corporations, the government, and the individual taxpayer. DISCUSSION: In this study, we propose an impact and economic evaluation to establish the proof concept of using a FPBC program to increase uptake of family planning services among urban poor youth in Uganda. The results of this study will present stakeholders in Uganda and internationally with a potentially viable option for corporate-sponsored access to family planning in urban poor communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MUREC1/7 No. 10/05-17. Registered 19th July 2017.