METHODS: A systematic review was performed for economic burden studies in schizophrenia using four electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and EconLit) from inception to August 31, 2014.
RESULTS: A total of 56 articles were included in this review. More than 80% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Most studies had undertaken a retrospective- and prevalence-based study design. The bottom-up approach was commonly employed to determine cost, while human capital method was used for indirect cost estimation. Database and literature were the most commonly used data sources in cost estimation in high-income countries, while chart review and interview were the main data sources in low and middle-income countries. Annual costs for the schizophrenia population in the country ranged from US$94 million to US$102 billion. Indirect costs contributed to 50%-85% of the total costs associated with schizophrenia. The economic burden of schizophrenia was estimated to range from 0.02% to 1.65% of the gross domestic product.
CONCLUSION: The enormous economic burden in schizophrenia is suggestive of the inadequate provision of health care services to these patients. An informed decision is achievable with the increasing recognition among public and policymakers that schizophrenia is burdensome. This results in better resource allocation and the development of policy-oriented research for this highly disabling yet under-recognized mental health disease.
METHODS: Research impact of universal access and quality healthcare projects funded by the National Institutes of Health Malaysia were assessed based on the modified Payback Framework, addressing categories of informing policy, knowledge production, and benefits to health and health sector. For the HRPS process, the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative methodology was adapted and adopted, with the incorporation of stakeholder values using weights and monetary allocation survey. Workshop discussions and interviews with stakeholders and research groups were conducted to identify research gaps, with the use of conceptual frameworks to guide the search.
RESULTS: Seventeen ongoing and 50 completed projects were identified for research funding impact analysis. Overall, research fund allocation differed from stakeholders' expectation. For research impact, 48 out of 50 completed projects (96.0%) contributed to some form of policy-making efforts. Almost all completed projects resulted in outputs that contributed to knowledge production and were expected to lead to health and health sector benefits. The HRPS process led to the identification of research priority areas that stemmed from ongoing and new issues identified for universal access and quality healthcare.
CONCLUSION: The concerted efforts of evaluation of research funding impact, prioritisation, dissemination and policy-maker involvement were valuable for optimal health research resource utilisation in a resource constrained developing country. Embedding impact evaluation into a priority setting process and funding research based on national needs could facilitate health research investment to reach its potential.
Materials and Methods: Thorough search of articles and recommendations were done to look into the characteristics of the virus in terms of transmission and risks during surgery. Smoke plume characteristics, composition and risk of viral transmission were also studied. Search includes The WHO Library, Cochrane Library and electronic databases (PubMed, Google scholar and Science Direct).
Conclusion: We concluded that there is no scientific basis of shunning laparoscopic approach in surgical intervention. Ultimately, the guiding principles would be of reducing the anesthetic and surgical duration, the availability of full protective gear for HCWs during the surgery and the status of the patient. It is mandatory for viral swab tests to be done within the shortest window period possible, for all cases planned for surgery.
Methods: We applied a retrospective approach using a top-down costing method to estimate the cost of health care services. Clinical and Administrative departments divided into cost centres, and the unit cost was calculated by dividing the total cost of final care cost centres into the total number of patients discharged in one year. The average cost of inpatient services was calculated based on the average cost of each ward and the number of patients treated.
Results: The average cost per patient stayed in KFCH was SAR 19,034, with the highest cost of SAR 108,561 for patients in the Orthopedic ward. The average cost of the patient in the Surgery ward, Plastic surgery, Neurosurgery, Medical ward, Pediatric ward and Gynecology ward was SAR 33,033, SAR 29,425, SAR 23,444, SAR 20,450, SAR 9579 and SAR 8636 respectively.
Conclusion: This study provides necessary information about the cost of health care services in a tertiary care setting. This information can be used as a primary tool and reference for further studies in other regions of the country. Hence, this data can help to provide a better understanding of tertiary hospital costing in the region to achieve the privatization objective.