DESIGN: Health efficiency analysis using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and stochastic frontier approach analysis.
SETTING: Health systems in China and ASEAN countries.
METHODS: DEA-Malmquist model and SFA model were used to analyse the health system efficiency among China and ASEAN countries, and the Tobit regression model was employed to analyse the factors affecting the efficiency of health system among these countries.
RESULTS: In 2020, the average technical efficiency, pure technical efficiency and scale efficiency of China and 10 ASEAN countries' health systems were 0.700, 1 and 0.701, respectively. The average total factor productivity (TFP) index of the health systems in 11 countries from 2015 to 2020 was 0.962, with a decrease of 1.4%, among which the average technical efficiency index was 1.016, and the average technical progress efficiency index was 0.947. In the past 6 years, the TFP index of the health system in Malaysia was higher than 1, while the TFP index of other countries was lower than 1. The cost efficiency among China and ASEAN countries was relatively high and stable. The per capita gross domestic product (current US$) and the urban population have significant effects on the efficiency of health systems.
CONCLUSIONS: Health systems inefficiency is existing in China and the majority ASEAN countries. However, the lower/middle-income countries outperformed high-income countries. Technical efficiency is the key to improve the TFP of health systems. It is suggested that China and ASEAN countries should enhance scale efficiency, accelerate technological progress and strengthen regional health cooperation according to their respective situations.
METHODS: R-hf risk score is derived from the product estimated glomerular filtration rate (mL/min), left ventricular ejection fraction (%), and hemoglobin levels (g/dL) divided by N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (pg/mL). This was a multinational, multicenter, prospective registry of heart failure from seven countries in the Middle East. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was applied.
RESULTS: A total of 776 patients (mean age = 62.0±14.0 years, 62.4% males; mean left ventricular ejection fraction = 33.0±14.0%) were included. Of these, 459 (59.1%) presented with acute decompensated chronic heart failure. The R-hf risk score group (≤ 5) was marginally associated with a higher risk of all-cause cumulative mortality at three months (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 4.28; 95% CI: 0.90-20.30; p =0.067) and significantly at 12 months (aOR = 3.84; 95% CI: 1.23-12.00; p =0.021) when compared to those with the highest R score group (≥ 50).
CONCLUSIONS: Lower R-hf risk scores are associated with increased risk of all-cause cumulative mortality at three and 12 months.
METHODS: Initially, after 2 weeks of in-patient detoxification, 120 patients with alcohol use disorder will be randomized into three groups (VRET, ACT, and TAU control groups) via stratified permuted block randomization in a 1:1:1 ratio. Baseline assessment (t0) commences, whereby all the participants will be administered with sociodemographic, clinical, and alcohol use characteristics questionnaire, such as Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT), Penn Alcohol Craving Scale (PACS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), while event-related potential (ERP) detection in electroencephalogram (EEG) will also be carried out. Then, 4 weeks of VRET, ACT, and non-therapeutic supportive activities will be conducted in the three respective groups. For the subsequent three assessment timelines (t1, t2, and t3), the alcohol use characteristic questionnaire, such as AUDIT, PACS, HAM-D, HAM-A, and ERP monitoring, will be re-administered to all participants.
DISCUSSION: As data on the effects of non-pharmacological interventions, such as VRET and ACT, on the treatment of alcohol craving and preventing relapse in alcohol use disorder are lacking, this RCT fills the research gap by providing these important data to treating clinicians. If proven efficacious, the efficacy of VRET and ACT for the treatment of other substance use disorders should also be investigated in future.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05841823 (ClinicalTrials.gov).