METHODS: A systematic literature review on economic studies reporting PSC-associated data was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus/Elsevier and Cochrane databases, Google Scholar and gray literature ranging from January 2000 to August 2016. Results for post-stroke interventions (treatment and care) were systematically extracted and summarized in evidence tables reporting study characteristics and economic outcomes. Economic results were converted to 2015 US Dollars, and the total cost of PSC per patient month (PM) was calculated.

RESULTS: We included 42 studies. Overall PSC costs (inpatient/outpatient) were highest in the USA ($4850/PM) and lowest in Australia ($752/PM). Studies assessing only outpatient care reported the highest cost in the United Kingdom ($883/PM), and the lowest in Malaysia ($192/PM). Fifteen different segments of specific services utilization were described, in which rehabilitation and nursing care were identified as the major contributors.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a major cause of mortality and morbidity and is associated with considerable economic burden on the individual and society. It limits the daily activities and working ability of the patients.

METHODOLOGY: We conducted a systematic search of PUBMED, SCIENCE DIRECT, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and SAGE Premier Databases to find scientific research articles evaluating the cost of COPD management from patient and societal perspective.

RESULTS: Estimated per patient per year direct cost in Norway, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Greece, Belgium, and Serbia was €10,701, €9580, €7847, €7448, €7045, €2896, €1963, and €2047, respectively. Annual per patient cost of work productivity loss was highest in Germany as €5735 and lowest in Greece as €998. It was estimated as €4824, €2033 and €1298 in Bulgaria, Denmark and Sweden, respectively. Several factors found associated with increasing cost of COPD management that include but not limited to late diagnosis, severity of disease, frequency of exacerbation, hospital readmissions, non-adherence to the therapy and exposure to COPD risk factors.

METHODS: A multi-stage sampling design was adopted for the study and data collection took place in three phases in 2010, 2011, and 2012 in the Northern region of Malaysia. Face-to-face interviews involved respondents answering both 13 TTO and 15 VAS valuation tasks were carried out. Both additive and multiplicative model specifications were explored using the valuation data. Model performance was evaluated using out-of-sample predictive accuracy by applying the cross-validation technique. The distribution of the model values was also graphically compared on Bland-Altman plots and kernel density distribution curves.

RESULTS: Data from 630 and 611 respondents were included for analyses using TTO and VAS models, respectively. In terms of main-effects specifications, cross-validation results revealed a slight superiority of multiplicative models over its additive counterpart in modelling TTO values. However, both main-effects models had roughly equal predictive accuracy for VAS models. The non-linear multiplicative model with I32 term, MULT7_TTO, performed best for TTO models; while, the linear additive model with N3 term, ADD11_VAS, outperformed the other VAS models. Multiplicative modelling neither altered the dimensional rankings of importance nor did it change the distribution of values of the health states.

METHODS: The algorithm was developed using data from 345 TDT patients. Spearman's rank correlation was used to evaluate the conceptual overlap between the instruments. Model specifications were chosen using a stepwise regression. Both direct and response mapping methods were attempted. Six mapping estimation methods ordinary least squares (OLS), a log-transformed response using OLS, generalized linear model (GLM), two-part model (TPM), Tobit and multinomial logistic regression (MLOGIT) were tested to determine the root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE). Other criterion used were accuracy of the predicted utility score, proportions of absolute differences that was less than 0.03 and intraclass correlation coefficient. An in-sample, leave-one-out cross validation was conducted to test the generalizability of each model.

RESULTS: The best performing model was specified with three out of the four PedsQL GCS scales-the physical, emotional and social functioning score. The best performing estimation method for direct mapping was a GLM with a RMSE of 0.1273 and MAE of 0.1016, while the best estimation method for response mapping was the MLOGIT with a RMSE of 0.1597 and MAE of 0.0826.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate how current literature has addressed WTP in relation to cancer treatment and achievement of outcomes.

METHODS: Seven databases were searched from inception until 2 March 2021 to include studies with primary data of WTP values for cancer treatments or achievement of outcomes that were elicited using stated preference methods.

RESULTS: Fifty-four studies were included in this review. All studies were published after year 2000 and more than 90% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Sample size of the studies ranged from 35 to 2040, with patient being the most studied population. There was a near even distribution between studies using contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment. Based on the included studies, the highest WTP values were for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ($11,498-$589,822), followed by 1-year survival ($3-$198,576), quality of life (QoL) improvement ($5531-$139,499), and pain reduction ($79-$94,662). Current empirical evidence suggested that improvement in QoL and pain reduction had comparable weights to survival in cancer management.