METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using electronic databases, such as EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, NHS and CEA Registry from 2000 until 2017. The quality of each included study was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statement checklist.
RESULTS: Of the 313 papers retrieved, five papers were included in this review after assessment for eligibility. The majority of the studies were cost-effectiveness studies, comparing ASP to standard care. Four included economic studies were conducted from the provider (hospital) perspective while the other study was from payer (National Health System) perspective. The cost included for economic analysis were as following: personnel costs, warded cost, medical costs, procedure costs and other costs.
CONCLUSIONS: All studies were generally well-conducted with relatively good quality of reporting. Implementing ASP in the hospital setting may be cost-effective. However, comprehensive cost-effectiveness data for ASP remain relatively scant, underlining the need for more prospective clinical and epidemiological studies to incorporate robust economic analyses into clinical decisions. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This case study aims to share a comprehensive overview of the ideation, conceptualisation and implementation of TGP. The authors also outlined its impact from the individual and organisational perspectives, besides highlighting the lessons learned and recommendations for the way forward.
FINDINGS: TGP set out to deliver experiential learning focusing on formal training, workplace experiences, practical reflection and mentoring by supervisors and other esteemed leaders to fulfil the five competency domains of leadership, organisational governance, communication and relationship, professional values and personal values. The successes and challenges in TGP programme delivery, post-training assessment, outcome evaluation and programme sustainability were outlined.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The authors' experience in setting up TGP provided valuable learning points for other leadership development programme providers. As for any development programme, a continuous evaluation is vital to ensure its relevance and sustainability.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Certain aspects of TGP establishment can be referenced and modified to adapt to country-specific settings for others to develop similar leadership programme, especially those in LMICs.
METHODS: In this single-center retrospective study, the relationship between common driver mutations (EGFR mutation and ALK rearrangement) and PD-L1 expression in advanced NSCLC according to the patients' smoking history was examined. Light, moderate and heavy smokers had smoked
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study with a universal sampling of children and adolescents with special needs aged 2-18 years old, diagnosed with cerebral palsy, down syndrome, autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was conducted at Community-Based Rehabilitation in Central Zone Malaysia. Socio-demographic data were obtained from files, and medical reports and anthropometric measurements (body weight, height, humeral length, and mid-upper arm circumference) were collected using standard procedures. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 26. The accuracy of the formula was determined by intraclass correlation, prediction at 20% of actual body weight, residual error (RE) and root mean square error (RMSE).
RESULT: A total of 502 children with a median age of 7 (6) years were enrolled in this study. The results showed that the Mercy formula demonstrated a smaller degree of bias than the Cattermole formula (PE = 1.97 ± 15.99% and 21.13 ± 27.76%, respectively). The Mercy formula showed the highest intraclass correlation coefficient (0.936 vs. 0.858) and predicted weight within 20% of the actual value in the largest proportion of participants (84% vs. 48%). The Mercy formula also demonstrated lower RE (0.3 vs. 3.6) and RMSE (3.84 vs. 6.56) compared to the Cattermole formula. Mercy offered the best option for weight estimation in children with special needs in our study population.