Considerations Around the Inclusion of Children and Young People's Time in Economic Evaluation: Findings from an International Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: People's time is a finite resource and a valuable input that ought to be considered in economic evaluations taking a broad, societal perspective. Yet, evaluations of interventions focusing on children and young people (CYP) rarely account for the opportunity cost of time in this population. As a key reason for this, health economists have pointed to uncertainty around when it is appropriate to include CYP time-related costs in an economic evaluation and highlighted the lack of clear guidance on the topic. METHODS: With this in mind, we carried out a Delphi study to establish a list of relevant considerations for researchers to utilise whilst making decisions about whether and when to include CYP time in their economic evaluations. Delphi panellists were asked to propose and rate a set of possible considerations and provide additional thoughts on their ratings. Ratings were summarised using descriptive statistics, and text comments were interrogated through thematic analysis. FINDINGS: A total of 73 panellists across 16 countries completed both rounds of a two-round Delphi study. Panellists' ratings showed that, when thinking about whether to include displaced CYP time in an economic evaluation, it is very important to consider whether: (1) inclusion would be in line with specified perspective(s) (median score: 9), (2) CYP's time may already be accounted for in other parts of the evaluation (median score: 8), (3) the amount of forgone time is substantial, either in absolute or relative terms (median score: 7) and (4) inclusion of CYP's time costs would be of interest to decision-makers (median score: 7). Respondents thought that considerations such as (1) whether inclusion would be of interest to the research community (median score: 6), (2) whether CYP's time displaced by receiving treatment is 'school' or 'play' time (median score: 5), and (3) whether CYP's are old enough for their time to be considered valuable (median score: 5) are moderately important. A range of views was offered to support beliefs and ratings, many of which were underpinned by compelling normative questions.

Nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy to improve insomnia disorder in primary care: the HABIT RCT.

Background: Insomnia is a prevalent and distressing sleep disorder. Multicomponent cognitive-behavioural therapy is the recommended first-line treatment, but access remains extremely limited, particularly in primary care where insomnia is managed. One principal component of cognitive-behavioural therapy is a behavioural treatment called sleep restriction therapy, which could potentially be delivered as a brief single-component intervention by generalists in primary care. Objectives: The primary objective of the Health-professional Administered Brief Insomnia Therapy trial was to establish whether nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care improves insomnia relative to sleep hygiene. Secondary objectives were to establish whether nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy was cost-effective, and to undertake a process evaluation to understand intervention delivery, fidelity and acceptability. Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial with embedded process evaluation. Setting: National Health Service general practice in three regions of England. Participants: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with insomnia disorder were randomised using a validated web-based randomisation programme. Interventions: Participants in the intervention group were offered a brief four-session nurse-delivered behavioural treatment involving two in-person sessions and two by phone. Participants were supported to follow a prescribed sleep schedule with the aim of restricting and standardising time in bed. Participants were also provided with a sleep hygiene leaflet. The control group received the same sleep hygiene leaflet by e-mail or post. There was no restriction on usual care. Main outcome measures: Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months. Participants were included in the primary analysis if they contributed at least one post-randomisation outcome. The primary end point was self-reported insomnia severity with the Insomnia Severity Index at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were health-related and sleep-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, work productivity and activity impairment, self-reported and actigraphy-defined sleep, and hypnotic medication use. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year. For the process evaluation, semistructured interviews were carried out with participants, nurses and practice managers or general practitioners. Due to the nature of the intervention, both participants and nurses were aware of group allocation. Results: We recruited 642 participants (n = 321 for sleep restriction therapy; n = 321 for sleep hygiene) between 29 August 2018 and 23 March 2020. Five hundred and eighty participants (90.3%) provided data at a minimum of one follow-up time point; 257 (80.1%) participants in the sleep restriction therapy arm and 291 (90.7%) participants in the sleep hygiene arm provided primary outcome data at 6 months. The estimated adjusted mean difference on the Insomnia Severity Index was -3.05 (95% confidence interval -3.83 to -2.28; p < 0.001, Cohen's d = -0.74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy arm [mean (standard deviation) Insomnia Severity Index = 10.9 (5.5)] reported lower insomnia severity compared to sleep hygiene [mean (standard deviation) Insomnia Severity Index = 13.9 (5.2)]. Large treatment effects were also found at 3 (d = -0.95) and 12 months (d = -0.72). Superiority of sleep restriction therapy over sleep hygiene was evident at 3, 6 and 12 months for self-reported sleep, mental health-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, work productivity impairment and sleep-related quality of life. Eight participants in each group experienced serious adverse events but none were judged to be related to the intervention. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was £2075.71, giving a 95.3% probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000. The process evaluation found that sleep restriction therapy was acceptable to both nurses and patients, and delivered with high fidelity. Limitations: While we recruited a clinical sample, 97% were of white ethnic background and 50% had a university degree, which may limit generalisability to the insomnia population in England. Conclusions: Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care is clinically effective for insomnia disorder, safe, and likely to be cost-effective. Future work: Future work should examine the place of sleep restriction therapy in the insomnia treatment pathway, assess generalisability across diverse primary care patients with insomnia, and consider additional methods to enhance patient engagement with treatment. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN42499563. Funding: The award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/84/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 36. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Insomnia refers to problems with falling asleep or staying asleep, which affects 10% of the adult population. The recommended treatment for insomnia is a psychological treatment called cognitive­behavioural therapy. Research shows this to be a very effective and long-lasting treatment, but there are not enough trained therapists to support the large number of poor sleepers in the United Kingdom. We have developed a brief version of cognitive­behavioural therapy, called sleep restriction therapy, which involves supporting the patient to follow a new sleep­wake pattern. We carried out this study to see if sleep restriction therapy, given by nurses working in general practice, can improve insomnia and quality of life. We searched general practice records and invited people with insomnia to take part. Six hundred and forty-two participants were assigned, by chance, to either sleep restriction therapy or a comparison treatment, called sleep hygiene. Sleep restriction therapy involved meeting with a nurse on four occasions and following a prescribed sleep schedule. Sleep hygiene involved receiving a leaflet of sleep 'do's and dont's'. Those receiving sleep restriction therapy were also provided with the same sleep hygiene leaflet so that the difference between the two groups was whether or not they received nurse treatment. We measured sleep, quality of life, daytime functioning and use of sleep medication through questionnaires, before and after treatment. We calculated the cost to deliver the treatment, as well as the cost of other National Health Service treatments that participants accessed during the study. We also interviewed participants and nurses to understand their views of the treatment. We found that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group experienced greater reduction in their insomnia symptoms compared to sleep hygiene. They also experienced improved sleep, mental health, quality of life and work productivity. The two groups did not differ in their use of prescribed sleep medication. Our results suggest that the treatment is likely to represent good value for money for the National Health Service. Both nurses and participants considered the treatment to be acceptable and beneficial, and they suggested some potential refinements. The study shows that nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy is likely to be a clinically effective approach to the treatment of insomnia, and good value for money for the National Health Service.

Whole-body hypothermia in mild neonatal encephalopathy: protocol for a multicentre phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mild hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy is associated with sub optimal cognition and learning difficulties at school age. Although whole-body hypothermia reduces death and disability after moderate or severe encephalopathy in high-income countries, the safety and efficacy of hypothermia in mild encephalopathy is not known. The cooling in mild encephalopathy (COMET) trial will examine if whole-body hypothermia improves cognitive development of neonates with mild encephalopathy. METHODS: The COMET trial is a phase III multicentre open label two-arm randomised controlled trial with masked outcome assessments. A total of 426 neonates with mild encephalopathy will be recruited from 50 to 60 NHS hospitals over 2 ½ years following parental consent. The neonates will be randomised to 72 h of whole-body hypothermia (33.5 ± 0.5 C) or normothermia (37.0 ± 0.5 C) within six hours or age. Prior to the recruitment front line clinical staff will be trained and certified on expanded modified Sarnat staging for encephalopathy. The neurological assessment of all screened and recruited cases will be video recorded and centrally assessed for quality assurance. If recruitment occurs at a non-cooling centre, neonates in both arms will be transferred to a cooling centre for continued care, after randomisation. All neonates will have continuous amplitude integrated electroencephalography (aEEG) at least for the first 48 h to monitor for seizures. Predefined safety outcomes will be documented, and data collected to assess resource utilization of health care. A central team masked to trial group allocation will assess neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 years of age. The primary outcome is mean difference in composite cognitive scores on Bayley scales of Infant and Toddler development 4th Edition. DISCUSSION: The COMET trial will establish the safety and efficacy of whole-body hypothermia for mild hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy and inform national and international guidelines in high income countries. It will also provide an economic assessment of whole-body hypothermia therapy for mild encephalopathy in the NHS on cost-effectiveness grounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05889507 June 5, 2023.

Correction: Seasonal influenza: Modelling approaches to capture immunity propagation.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007096.].

Family group conferencing for children and families: Evaluation of implementation, context and effectiveness (Family VOICE). Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Family group conferences (FGCs) in child welfare bring immediate and wider family members together to decide on the best way to meet a child's needs. Unlike professionally led meetings, the aim is for decisions to be made by or with family members. Qualitative and mixed-method research with FGC participants tends to show positive experiences: most participants feel their voices are heard; FGCs facilitate family-driven solutions and closer relationships-within families and with social workers. Although there is existing literature on FGCs, there is a paucity of robust comparative UK evaluations, i.e., randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies. Comparative studies internationally have focused on a narrow range of outcomes, not recognised the importance of context, and paid little attention to the quality of delivery. Some qualitative studies have considered process and context but there is scant measurement of these. The aims of this study are, firstly, to establish how FGCs improve outcomes for families and what factors vary their quality, and, secondly, to assess longer-term outcomes in terms of service use and associated costs. METHODS: Given the importance of process and context, evaluation informed by realist and complex systems approaches is needed. This multi-method evaluation includes a survey of FGC services in all UK local authorities (n = 212) to map service provision; co-design of programme theory and evaluation measures with family members who have experienced an FGC (n = 16-24) and practitioners (n = 16-24) in two sites; a prospective single-arm study of FGC variability and outcomes after six months; and comparison of service use and costs in FGC participants (n≥300 families) and a control group (n≥1000) after two years using a quasi-experiment. DISCUSSION: This is a pragmatic evaluation of an existing intervention, to identify what mechanisms and contexts influence effective process and longer-term outcomes. The study is registered with Research Registry (ref. 7432).

Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation.

Background: Health economic assessments are used to determine whether the resources needed to generate net benefit from an antenatal or newborn screening programme, driven by multiple benefits and harms, are justifiable. It is not known what benefits and harms have been adopted by economic evaluations assessing these programmes and whether they omit benefits and harms considered important to relevant stakeholders. Objectives: (1) To identify the benefits and harms adopted by health economic assessments in this area, and to assess how they have been measured and valued; (2) to identify attributes or relevance to stakeholders that ought to be considered in future economic assessments; and (3) to make recommendations about the benefits and harms that should be considered by these studies. Design: Mixed methods combining systematic review and qualitative work. Systematic review methods: We searched the published and grey literature from January 2000 to January 2021 using all major electronic databases. Economic evaluations of an antenatal or newborn screening programme in one or more Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries were considered eligible. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. We identified benefits and harms using an integrative descriptive analysis and constructed a thematic framework. Qualitative methods: We conducted a meta-ethnography of the existing literature on newborn screening experiences, a secondary analysis of existing individual interviews related to antenatal or newborn screening or living with screened-for conditions, and a thematic analysis of primary data collected with stakeholders about their experiences with screening. Results: The literature searches identified 52,244 articles and reports, and 336 unique studies were included. Thematic framework resulted in seven themes: (1) diagnosis of screened for condition, (2) life-years and health status adjustments, (3) treatment, (4) long-term costs, (5) overdiagnosis, (6) pregnancy loss and (7) spillover effects on family members. Diagnosis of screened-for condition (115, 47.5%), life-years and health status adjustments (90, 37.2%) and treatment (88, 36.4%) accounted for most of the benefits and harms evaluating antenatal screening. The same themes accounted for most of the benefits and harms included in studies assessing newborn screening. Long-term costs, overdiagnosis and spillover effects tended to be ignored. The wide-reaching family implications of screening were considered important to stakeholders. We observed good overlap between the thematic framework and the qualitative evidence. Limitations: Dual data extraction within the systematic literature review was not feasible due to the large number of studies included. It was difficult to recruit healthcare professionals in the stakeholder's interviews. Conclusions: There is no consistency in the selection of benefits and harms used in health economic assessments in this area, suggesting that additional methods guidance is needed. Our proposed thematic framework can be used to guide the development of future health economic assessments evaluating antenatal and newborn screening programmes. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165236. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127489) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Every year the NHS offers pregnant women screening tests to assess the chances of them or their unborn baby having or developing a health condition. It also offers screening tests for newborn babies to look for a range of health conditions. The implementation of screening programmes and the care for women and babies require many resources and funding for the NHS, so it is important that screening programmes represent good value for money. This means that the amount of money the NHS spends on a programme is justified by the amount of benefit that the programme gives. We wanted to see whether researchers consider all the important benefits and harms associated with screening of pregnant women and newborn babies when calculating value for money. To do this, we searched all studies available in developed countries to identify what benefits and harms they considered. We also considered the views of parents and healthcare professionals on the benefits and harms screening that creates for families and wider society. We found that the identification of benefits and harms of screening is complex because screening results affect a range of people (mother­baby, parents, extended family and wider society). Researchers calculating the value for money of screening programmes have, to date, concentrated on a narrow range of benefits and harms and ignored many factors that are important to people affected by screening results. From our discussions with parents and healthcare professionals, we found that wider impacts on families are an important consideration. Only one study we looked at considered wider impacts on families. Our work also found that parent's ability to recognise, absorb and apply new information to understand their child's screening results or condition is important. Healthcare professionals involve in screening should consider this when supporting families of children with a condition. We have created a list for researchers to identify the benefits and harms that are important to include in future studies. We have also identified different ways researchers can value these benefits and harms, so they are incorporated into their studies in a meaningful way.

Early versus delayed weight-bearing following operatively treated ankle fracture (WAX): a non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: After surgery for a broken ankle, patients are usually instructed to avoid walking for 6 weeks (delayed weight-bearing). Walking 2 weeks after surgery (early weight-bearing) might be a safe and preferable rehabilitation strategy. This study aimed to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of an early weight-bearing strategy compared with a delayed weight-bearing strategy. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial including 561 participants (aged ≥18 years) who received acute surgery for an unstable ankle fracture in 23 UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals who were assigned to either a delayed weight-bearing (n=280) or an early weight-bearing rehabilitation strategy (n=281). Patients treated with a hindfoot nail, those who did not have protective ankle sensation (eg, peripheral neuropathy), did not have the capacity to consent, or did not have the ability to adhere to trial procedures were excluded. Neither participants nor clinicians were masked to the treatment. The primary outcome was ankle function measured using the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) at 4 months after randomisation, in the per-protocol population. The pre-specified non-inferiority OMAS margin was -6 points and superiority testing was included in the intention-to-treat population in the event of non-inferiority. The trial was prospectively registered with ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN12883981, and the trial is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Primary outcome data were collected from 480 (86%) of 561 participants. Recruitment was conducted between Jan 13, 2020, and Oct 29, 2021. At 4 months after randomisation, the mean OMAS score was 65·9 in the early weight-bearing and 61·2 in the delayed weight-bearing group and adjusted mean difference was 4·47 (95% CI 0·58 to 8·37, p=0·024; superiority testing adjusted difference 4·42, 95% CI 0·53 to 8·32, p=0·026) in favour of early weight-bearing. 46 (16%) participants in the early weight-bearing group and 39 (14%) in the delayed weight-bearing group had one or more complications (adjusted odds ratio 1·18, 95% CI 0·80 to 1·75, p=0·40). The mean costs from the perspective of the NHS and personal social services in the early and delayed weight-bearing groups were £725 and £785, respectively (mean difference -£60 [95% CI -342 to 232]). The probability that early weight-bearing is cost-effective exceeded 80%. INTERPRETATION: An early weight-bearing strategy was found to be clinically non-inferior and highly likely to be cost-effective compared with the current standard of care (delayed weight-bearing). FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre, and NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of termination of resuscitation rules for patients transported in cardiac arrest.

AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of termination-of-resuscitation (TOR) rules for patients transported in cardiac arrest. METHODS: The economic analyses evaluated cost-effectiveness of alternative TOR rules for OHCA from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. A systematic review was used to identify the different TOR rules included in the analyses. Data from the OHCAO outcomes registry, trial data and published literature were used to compare outcomes for the different rules identified. The economic analyses estimated discounted NHS and PSS costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each TOR rule, based on which incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 33 TOR rules and the economic analyses assessed the performance of 29 of these TOR rules plus current practice. The most cost-effective strategies were the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £8,111), the Korean Cardiac Arrest Research Consortium 2 (KOC 2) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £17,548), and the universal Basic Life Support (BLS) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £19,498,216). The KOC 2 TOR rule was cost-effective at the established cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-£30,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The KOC 2 rule is the most cost-effective at established cost-effectiveness thresholds used to inform health care decision-making in the UK. Further research on economic implications of TOR rules is warranted to support constructive discussion on implementing TOR rules.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards for Interventions That Use Artificial Intelligence (CHEERS-AI).

OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations (EEs) are commonly used by decision makers to understand the value of health interventions. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) provide reporting guidelines for EEs. Healthcare systems will increasingly see new interventions that use artificial intelligence (AI) to perform their function. We developed Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards for Interventions that use AI (CHEERS-AI) to ensure EEs of AI-based health interventions are reported in a transparent and reproducible manner. METHODS: Potential CHEERS-AI reporting items were informed by 2 published systematic literature reviews of EEs and a contemporary update. A Delphi study was conducted using 3 survey rounds to elicit multidisciplinary expert views on 26 potential items, through a 9-point Likert rating scale and qualitative comments. An online consensus meeting was held to finalize outstanding reporting items. A digital health patient group reviewed the final checklist from a patient perspective. RESULTS: A total of 58 participants responded to survey round 1, 42, and 31 of whom responded to rounds 2 and 3, respectively. Nine participants joined the consensus meeting. Ultimately, 38 reporting items were included in CHEERS-AI. They comprised the 28 original CHEERS 2022 items, plus 10 new AI-specific reporting items. Additionally, 8 of the original CHEERS 2022 items were elaborated on to ensure AI-specific nuance is reported. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS-AI should be used when reporting an EE of an intervention that uses AI to perform its function. CHEERS-AI will help decision makers and reviewers to understand important AI-specific details of an intervention, and any implications for the EE methods used and cost-effectiveness conclusions.

Childhood Transitions Between Weight Status Categories: Evidence from the UK Millennium Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting childhood excess weight requires estimates of the hazards of transitioning between weight status categories. Current estimates are based on studies characterized by insufficient sample sizes, a lack of national representativeness, and untested assumptions. OBJECTIVES: We sought to (1) estimate transition probabilities and hazard ratios for transitioning between childhood weight status categories, (2) test the validity of the underlying assumption in the literature that transitions between childhood bodyweight categories are time-homogeneous, (3) account for complex sampling procedures when deriving nationally representative transition estimates, and (4) explore the impact of child, maternal, and sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: We applied a multistate transition modeling approach accounting for complex survey design to UK Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) data to predict transition probabilities and hazard ratios for weight status movements for children aged 3-17. Surveys were conducted at ages 3 (wave 2 in 2004), 5 (wave 3 in 2006), 7 (wave 4 in 2008), 11 (wave 5 in 2012), 14 (wave 6 in 2015), and 17 (wave 7 in 2018) years. We derived datasets that included repeated body mass index measurements across waves after excluding multiple births and children with missing or implausible bodyweight records. To account for the stratified cluster sample design of the MCS, we incorporated survey weights and jackknife replicates of survey weights. Using a validation dataset from the MCS, we tested the validity of our models. Finally, we estimated the relationships between state transitions and child, maternal, and sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: The datasets for our primary analysis consisted of 10,399 children for waves 2-3, 10,729 for waves 3-4, 9685 for waves 4-5, 8593 for waves 5-6, and 7085 for waves 6-7. All datasets consisted of roughly equal splits of boys and girls. Under the assumption of time-heterogeneous transition rates (our base-case model), younger children (ages 3-5 and 5-7 years) had significantly higher annual transition probabilities of moving from healthy weight to overweight (0.033, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.026-0.041, and 0.027, 95% CI 0.021-0.033, respectively) compared to older children (0.015, 95% CI 0.012-0.018, at ages 7-11; 0.018, 95% CI 0.013-0.023, at ages 11-14; and 0.018, 95% CI 0.013-0.025 at ages 14-17 years). However, the resolution of unhealthy weight was more strongly age-dependent than transitions from healthy weight to non-healthy weight states. Transition hazards differed by child, maternal, and sociodemographic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our models generated estimates of bodyweight status transitions in a representative UK childhood population. Compared to our scenario models (i.e., time-homogeneous transition rates), our base-case model fits the observed data best, indicating a non-time-homogeneous pattern in transitions between bodyweight categories during childhood. Transition hazards varied significantly by age and across subpopulations, suggesting that conducting subgroup-specific cost-effectiveness analyses of childhood weight management interventions will optimize decision-making.

Quality Appraisal in Systematic Literature Reviews of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values: Conceptual Considerations.

BACKGROUND: The increasing number of studies that generate health state utility values (HSUVs) and the impact of HSUVs on cost-utility analyses make a robust tailored quality appraisal (QA) tool for systematic reviews of these studies necessary. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to address conceptual issues regarding QA in systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs by establishing a consensus on the definitions, dimensions and scope of a QA tool specific to this context. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used in this study. An international multidisciplinary panel of seven experts was purposively assembled. The experts engaged in two anonymous online survey rounds. After each round, the experts received structured and controlled feedback on the previous phase. Controlled feedback allowed the experts to re-evaluate and adjust their positions based on collective insights. Following these surveys, a virtual face-to-face meeting was held to resolve outstanding issues. Consensus was defined a priori at all stages of the modified Delphi process. RESULTS: The response rates to the first-round and second-round questionnaires and the virtual consensus meeting were 100%, 86% and 71%, respectively. The entire process culminated in a consensus on the definitions of scientific quality, QA, the three QA dimensions-reporting, relevance and  methodological quality-and the scope of a QA tool specific to studies that elicit HSUVs. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving this consensus marks a pivotal step towards developing a QA tool specific to systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs. Future research will build on this foundation, identify QA items, signalling questions and response options, and develop a QA tool specific to studies eliciting HSUVs.

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir for high-risk, community-based adults with COVID-19: an economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over 6 months. DESIGN AND SETTING: An economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK NHS and personal social services perspective and a 6-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI = 0.0044 to 0.0067) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81 190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except for those aged ≥75 years, with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30 000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15 000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: At the current cost of £513 per course, molnupiravir is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a 6-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated patients with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

The RETRIEVE Checklist for Studies Reporting the Elicitation of Stated Preferences for Child Health-Related Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Recent systematic reviews show varying methods for eliciting, modelling, and reporting preference-based values for child health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes, thus producing value sets with different characteristics. Reporting in many of the reviewed studies was found to be incomplete and inconsistent, making them difficult to assess. Checklists can help to improve standards of reporting; however, existing checklists do not address methodological issues for valuing child HRQoL. Existing checklists also focus on reporting methods and processes used in developing HRQoL values, with less focus on reporting of the values' key characteristics and properties. We aimed to develop a checklist for studies generating values for child HRQoL, including for disease-specific states and value sets for generic child HRQoL instruments. DEVELOPMENT: A conceptual model provided a structure for grouping items into five modules. Potential items were sourced from an adult HRQoL checklist review, with additional items specific to children developed using recent reviews. Checklist items were reduced by eliminating duplication and overlap, then refined for relevance and clarity via an iterative process. Long and short checklist versions were produced for different user needs. The resulting long RETRIEVE contains 83 items, with modules for reporting methods (A-D) and characteristics of values (E), for researchers planning and reporting child health valuation studies. The short RETRIEVE contains 14 items for decision makers or researchers choosing value sets. CONCLUSION: Applying the RETRIEVE checklists to relevant studies suggests feasibility. RETRIEVE has the potential to improve completeness in the reporting of preference-based values for child HRQOL outcomes and to improve assessment of preference-based value sets.

Longitudinal associations between socioeconomic position and overall health of children with chronic kidney disease and their carers.

BACKGROUND: Disadvantaged socioeconomic position (SEP) is an important predictor of poor health in children with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The time course over which SEP influences the health of children with CKD and their carers is unknown. METHODS: This prospective longitudinal study included 377 children, aged 6-18 years with CKD (stages I-V, dialysis, and transplant), and their primary carers. Mixed effects ordinal regression was performed to assess the association between SEP and carer-rated child health and carer self-rated health over a 4-year follow-up. RESULTS: Adjusted for CKD stage, higher family household income (adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) 3.3, 1.8-6.0), employed status of primary carers (1.7, 0.9-3.0), higher carer-perceived financial status (2.6, 1.4-4.8), and carer home ownership (2.2, 1.2-4.0) were associated with better carer-rated child health. Household income also had a differential effect on the carer's self-rated health over time (p = 0.005). The predicted probabilities for carers' overall health being 'very good' among lower income groups at 0, 2, and 4 years were 0.43 (0.28-0.60), 0.34 (0.20-0.51), and 0.25 (0.12-0.44), respectively, and 0.81 (0.69-0.88), 0.84 (0.74-0.91), and 0.88 (0.76-0.94) for carers within the higher income group. CONCLUSIONS: Carers and their children with CKD in higher SEP report better overall child and carer health compared with those in lower SEP. Carers of children with CKD in low-income households had poorer self-rated health compared with carers in higher-income households at baseline, and this worsened over time. These cumulative effects may contribute to health inequities between higher and lower SEP groups over time. Graphical abstract A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Variation in follow-up for children born very preterm in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Children born very preterm (<32 weeks of gestation) face high risks of neurodevelopmental and health difficulties compared with children born at term. Follow-up after discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit is essential to ensure early detection and intervention, but data on policy approaches are sparse. METHODS: We investigated the characteristics of follow-up policy and programmes in 11 European countries from 2011 to 2022 using healthcare informant questionnaires and the published/grey literature. We further explored how one aspect of follow-up, its recommended duration, may be reflected in the percent of parents reporting that their children are receiving follow-up services at 5 years of age in these countries using data from an area-based cohort of very preterm births in 2011/12 (N = 3635). RESULTS: Between 2011/12 and 22, the number of countries with follow-up policies or programmes increased from 6 to 11. The policies and programmes were heterogeneous in eligibility criteria, duration and content. In countries that recommended longer follow-up, parent-reported follow-up rates at 5 years of age were higher, especially among the highest risk children, born <28 weeks' gestation or with birthweight <1000 g: between 42.1% and 70.1%, vs. <20% in most countries without recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Large variations exist in follow-up policies and programmes for children born very preterm in Europe; differences in recommended duration translate into cross-country disparities in reported follow-up at 5 years of age.

Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to synthesise knowledge on the relative social value of child and adult health. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative studies that evaluated the willingness of the public to prioritise treatments for children over adults were included. A search to September 2023 was undertaken. Completeness of reporting was assessed using a checklist derived from Johnston et al. Findings were tabulated by study type (matching/person trade-off, discrete choice experiment, willingness to pay, opinion survey or qualitative). Evidence in favour of children was considered in total, by length or quality of life, methodology and respondent characteristics. RESULTS: Eighty-eight studies were included; willingness to pay (n = 9), matching/person trade-off (n = 12), discrete choice experiments (n = 29), opinion surveys (n = 22) and qualitative (n = 16), with one study simultaneously included as an opinion survey. From 88 studies, 81 results could be ascertained. Across all studies irrespective of method or other characteristics, 42 findings supported prioritising children, while 12 provided evidence favouring adults in preference to children. The remainder supported equal prioritisation or found diverse or unclear views. Of those studies considering prioritisation within the under 18 years of age group, nine findings favoured older children over younger children (including for life saving interventions), six favoured younger children and five found diverse views. CONCLUSIONS: The balance of evidence suggests the general public favours prioritising children over adults, but this view was not found across all studies. There are research gaps in understanding the public's views on the value of health gains to very young children and the motivation behind the public's views on the value of child relative to adult health gains. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review is registered at PROSPERO number: CRD42021244593. There were two amendments to the protocol: (1) some additional search terms were added to the search strategy prior to screening to ensure coverage and (2) a more formal quality assessment was added to the process at the data extraction stage. This assessment had not been identified at the protocol writing stage.

Mapping and identifying service models for community-based services for children with intellectual disabilities and behaviours that challenge in England.

BACKGROUND: One in five children with an intellectual disability in the UK display behaviours that challenge. Despite associated impacts on the children themselves, their families, and services, little research has been published about how best to design, organise, and deliver health and care services to these children. The purpose of this study was to describe how services are structured and organised ("service models") in England for community-based health and care services for children with intellectual disability who display behaviours that challenge. METHODS: Survey data about services were collected from 161 eligible community-based services in England. Staff from 60 of these services were also interviewed. A combination of latent class and descriptive analysis, coupled with consultation with family carers and professionals was used to identify and describe groupings of similar services (i.e., "service models"). RESULTS: The latent class analysis, completed as a first step in the process, supported a distinction between specialist services and non-specialist services for children who display behaviours that challenge. Planned descriptive analyses incorporating additional study variables were undertaken to further refine the service models. Five service models were identified: Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) (n = 69 services), Intellectual Disability CAMHS (n = 28 services), Children and Young People Disability services (n = 25 services), Specialist services for children who display behaviours that challenge (n = 27 services), and broader age range services for children and/or adolescents and adults (n= 12 services). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis led to a typology of five service models for community health and care services for children with intellectual disabilities and behaviours that challenge in England. Identification of a typology of service models is a first step in building evidence about the best provision of services for children with intellectual disabilities who display behaviours that challenge. The methods used in the current study may be useful in research developing service typologies in other specialist fields of health and care. STUDY REGISTRATION: Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88920546, Date assigned 05/07/2022.

Impact of Long COVID on productivity and informal caregiving.

BACKGROUND: Around 2 million people in the UK suffer from Long COVID (LC). Of concern is the disease impact on productivity and informal care burden. This study aimed to quantify and value productivity losses and informal care receipt in a sample of LC patients in the UK. METHODS: The target population comprised LC patients referred to LC specialist clinics. The questionnaires included a health economics questionnaire (HEQ) measuring productivity impacts, informal care receipt and service utilisation, EQ-5D-5L, C19-YRS LC condition-specific measure, and sociodemographic and COVID-19 history variables. Outcomes were changes from the incident infection resulting in LC to the month preceding the survey in paid work status/h, work income, work performance and informal care receipt. The human capital approach valued productivity losses; the proxy goods method valued caregiving hours. The values were extrapolated nationally using published prevalence data. Multilevel regressions, nested by region, estimated associations between the outcomes and patient characteristics. RESULTS: 366 patients responded to HEQ (mean LC duration 449.9 days). 51.7% reduced paid work hours relative to the pre-infection period. Mean monthly work income declined by 24.5%. The average aggregate value of productivity loss since incident infection was £10,929 (95% bootstrap confidence interval £8,844-£13,014) and £5.7 billion (£3.8-£7.6 billion) extrapolated nationally. The corresponding values for informal caregiving were £8,726 (£6,247-£11,204) and £4.8 billion (£2.6-£7.0 billion). Multivariate analyses found significant associations between each outcome and health utility and C19-YRS subscale scores. CONCLUSION: LC significantly impacts productivity losses and provision of informal care, exacerbated by high national prevalence of LC.

Pain with neuropathic characteristics after surgically treated lower limb fractures: Cost analysis and pain medication use.

Introduction: Neuropathic pain is prevalent among people after lower limb fracture surgery and is associated with lower health-related quality of life and greater disability. This study estimates the financial cost and pain medication use associated with neuropathic pain in this group. Methods: A secondary analysis using pain data collected over six postoperative months from participants randomised in the Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHiST) trial. Pain states were classified as pain-free, chronic non-neuropathic pain (NNP) or chronic neuropathic pain (NP). Cost associated with each pain state from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective were estimated by multivariate models based on multiple imputed data. Pain medication usage was analysed by pain state. Results: A total of 934 participants who provided either 3- or 6-months pain data were included. Compared to participants with NP, those with NNP (adjusted mean difference -£730, p = 0.38, 95% CI -2368 to 908) or were pain-free (adjusted mean difference -£716, p = 0.53, 95% CI -2929 to 1497) had lower costs from the NHS and PSS perspective in the first three postoperative months. Over the first three postoperative months, almost a third of participants with NP were prescribed opioids and 8% were prescribed NP medications. Similar trends were observed by 6 months postoperatively. Conclusion: This study found healthcare costs were higher amongst those with chronic NP compared to those who were pain-free or had chronic NNP. Opioids, rather than neuropathic pain medications, were commonly prescribed for NP over the first six postoperative months, contrary to clinical guidelines.