METHODS: All fourth-year pharmacy students enrolled in Monash University in 2017 were provided access to MOVE. Cost-minimization analyses were performed to evaluate the cost of introducing MOVE in the pharmacy course using the smallest cohort size (Malaysia campus) of 40 students as the base case. We also determined under what circumstances MOVE would be more cost-effective, considering the different operational situations such as when student numbers increased or when the number of simulation modules created were increased.
RESULTS: The overall cost of setup and implementation of MOVE in the first year of implementation among 40 students was US $94.38 per student. In comparison, the face-to-face workshop cost was US $64.14 per student. On the second year of implementation, the ongoing cost of operation of MOVE was US $32.86 per student compared with US $58.97 per student using face-to-face workshop. A net benefit using MOVE was observed after the third year of implementation. Larger savings were noted when the cohort size extends larger than 100 students.
CONCLUSIONS: Monash OSCE Virtual Experience was a flexible and cost-effective approach to aid students in preparation for an OSCE and enhanced students' learning experience. The wider applicability of these findings will need to be explored in other settings.
METHODS: The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022270039), and reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Relevant studies were identified through searches in six generic and specialized bibliographic databases, i.e. PubMed, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, PsycINFO, Health Economic Evaluations Database, tufts CEA registry and EconLit, from their inception to 23 October 2022. The cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions is represented by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The quality of studies was assessed using the quality of the health economics studies (QHES) instrument. Data were narratively synthesized in the form of tables and texts. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a permutation matrix was used for quantitative data synthesis rather than a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies, mostly conducted in North America (8/15 studies), were included in the review. The time horizon ranged from a year to a lifetime. Ten out of 15 studies used a micro-simulation, 4/15 studies employed Markov and 1/15 employed a dynamic model. The most commonly used interventions reported include technology based (5/15), nurse involved (2/15), directly observed therapy (2/15), case manager involved (1/15) and others that involved multi-component interventions (5/15). In 1/15 studies, interventions gained higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with cost savings. The interventions in 14/15 studies were more effective but at a higher cost, and the overall ICER was well below the acceptable threshold mentioned in each study, indicating the interventions could potentially be implemented after careful interpretation. The studies were graded as high quality (13/15) or fair quality (2/15), with some methodological inconsistencies reported.
CONCLUSION: Counselling and smartphone-based interventions are cost-effective, and they have the potential to reduce the chronic adherence problem significantly. The quality of decision models can be improved by addressing inconsistencies in model selection, data inputs incorporated into models and uncertainty assessment methods.
METHODS: To construct a practical value framework for traditional non-pharmacological therapies, a scoping review methodology was adopted to identify the evaluation domains and obstacles. A search, screening, and analysis process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Evidence was retrieved from scientific databases and HTA agencies' websites.
RESULTS: The search strategy identified 5 guidelines records and 17 acupuncture HTA reports. By synthesizing the valuable reports of CPM and acupuncture evaluation in representative countries, this study found that Mainland China was promoting the comprehensive value assessment of CPM, whereas the United Kingdom, Singapore, Canada, the United States, and Malaysia had carried out the HTA evaluation of acupuncture for various conditions among which chronic pain was the most common. UK and Singapore applied the HTA results to support acupuncture reimbursement decisions. Three domains, including safety, effectiveness, and economy, were commonly adopted. The identified biggest challenge of evaluating traditional non-pharmacological therapies is the scarce high-quality clinical evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified value domains and issues of traditional therapies, and pointed out future research implications, to promote the development value framework of traditional therapies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in 10 databases from inception until February 2018. All economic evaluations assessing the economic evaluation of telemedicine in diabetes were eligible for inclusion. We subsequently evaluated the study quality in terms of effectiveness measures, cost measure, economic model, as well as time horizon.
RESULTS: Of the 1877 studies identified, 14 articles were included in our final review. The healthcare providers' fees are a major predictor for total cost. In particular, the use of telemedicine for retinal screening was beneficial and cost-effective for diabetes management, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between $113.48/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $3,328.46/QALY (adjusted to 2017 inflation rate). Similarly, the use of telemonitoring and telephone reminders was cost-effective in diabetes management.
CONCLUSIONS: Among all telemedicine strategies examined, teleophthalmology was the most cost-effective intervention. Future research is needed to provide evidence on the long-term experience of telemedicine and facilitate resource allocation.
METHODS: A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic.
RESULTS: Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries.
CONCLUSION: Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.
METHODS: The economic evaluation was conducted alongside the randomised controlled trial (RCT) to estimate the intermediate cost-effectiveness of HMR-CP for patients with T2DM. A Markov model was then constructed to project the lifetime cost-effectiveness data beyond the RCT. The primary outcomes for the economic evaluation were HbA1c and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
RESULTS: The intervention and health services costs throughout the 6-month HMR-CP trial were RM121.45 (USD28.64) [95%CI: RM115.89 to 127.08 (USD27.33-29.97)] per participant. At a 6-month follow-up, a significant reduction in HbA1c of 0.902% (95% CI: 0.388% to 1.412%) was noted in the HMR-CP group compared to the control group. The ICER of HMR-CP intervention versus standard care was RM178.82 (USD 42.17) [95%CI: RM86.77-364.03 (USD20.46-85.86)] per reduction of HbA1c. HMR-CP intervention [RM12,764.82 (USD3010.57)] was associated with an incremental cost of RM83.34 (USD19.66) over control group [RM12,682.95 (USD2,991.26)] with an additional of 0.07 QALY gained. The ICER associated with HMR-CP intervention was RM1,190.57 (USD280.79) per QALY gained, which was below the ICER threshold in Malaysia, indicating that HMR-CP was a cost-effective option.
CONCLUSION: HMR-CP was a cost-effective intervention that had significantly reduced the HbA1c among the T2DM patients, although associated with higher mean total costs per participant.