Costs of Australian intensive care: A systematic review.

Objective: Intensive care unit (ICU) cost estimates are critical to achieving healthcare system efficiency and sustainability. We aimed to review the published literature describing ICU costs in Australia. Design: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that estimated the cost of ICU care in Australia. Studies conducted in specific patient cohorts or on specific treatments were excluded. Data sources: Relevant studies were sourced from a previously published review (1970-2016), a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE (2016-5 May 2023), and reference checking. Review methods: A tool was developed to assess study quality and risk of bias (maximum score 57/57). Total and component costs were tabulated and indexed to 2022 Australian Dollars. Costing methodologies and study quality assessments were summarised. Results: Six costing studies met the inclusion criteria. Study quality scores were low (15/41 to 35/47). Most studies were conducted only in tertiary metropolitan public ICUs; sample sizes ranged from 100 to 10,204 patients. One study used data collected within the past 10 years. Mean daily ICU costs ranged from $966 to $5381 and mean total ICU admission costs $4888 to $14,606. Three studies used a top-down costing approach, deriving cost estimates from budget reports. The other three studies used both bottom-up and top-down costing approaches. Bottom-up approaches collected individual patient resource use. Conclusions: Available ICU cost estimates are largely outdated and lack granular data. Future research is needed to estimate ICU costs that better reflect current practice and patient complexity and to determine the best methods for generating these estimates.

Operationalizing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to build and support the lived experience workforce in direct health service provision.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of people with lived experience (LEX) workers in the development, design, and delivery of integrated health services seeks to improve service user engagement and health outcomes and reduce healthcare gaps. Yet, LEX workers report feeling undervalued and having limited influence on service delivery. There is a need for systematic improvements in how LEX workforces are engaged and supported to ensure the LEX workforce can fully contribute to integrated systems of care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to operationalize the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) using a rigorous scoping review methodology and co-creation process, so it could be used by health services seeking to build and strengthen their LEX workforce. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic literature search of four databases was undertaken to identify peer-reviewed studies published between 2016 and 2022 providing evidence of the inclusion of LEX workers in direct health service provision. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A descriptive-analytical method was used to map current evidence of LEX workers onto the CFIR. Then, co-creation sessions with LEX workers (n = 4) and their counterparts-nonpeer workers (n = 2)-further clarified the structural policies and strategies that allow people with LEX to actively participate in the provision and enhancement of integrated health service delivery. MAIN RESULTS: Essential components underpinning the successful integration of LEX roles included: the capacity to engage in a co-creation process with individuals with LEX before the implementation of the role or intervention; and enhanced representation of LEX across organizational structures. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The adapted CFIR for LEX workers (CFIR-LEX) that was developed as a result of this work clarifies contextual components that support the successful integration of LEX roles into the development, design, and delivery of integrated health services. Further work must be done to operationalize the framework in a local context and to better understand the ongoing application of the framework in a health setting. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with LEX were involved in the operationalization of the CFIR, including contributing their expertise to the domain adaptations that were relevant to the LEX workforce.

Midwife-led birthing centres in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Uganda: an economic evaluation of case study sites.

INTRODUCTION: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality rates will require the expansion and strengthening of quality maternal health services. Midwife-led birth centres (MLBCs) are an alternative to hospital-based care for low-risk pregnancies where the lead professional at the time of birth is a trained midwife. These have been used in many countries to improve birth outcomes. METHODS: The cost analysis used primary data collection from four MLBCs in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Uganda (n=12 MLBC sites). Modelled cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured as incremental cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, of MLBCs to standard care in each country. Results were presented in 2022 US dollars. RESULTS: Cost per birth in MLBCs varied greatly within and between countries, from US$21 per birth at site 3, Bangladesh to US$2374 at site 2, Uganda. Midwife salary and facility operation costs were the primary drivers of costs in most MLBCs. Six of the 12 MLBCs produced better health outcomes at a lower cost (dominated) compared with standard care; and three produced better health outcomes at a higher cost compared with standard care, with ICERs ranging from US$571/DALY averted to US$55 942/DALY averted. CONCLUSION: MLBCs appear to be able to produce better health outcomes at lower cost or be highly cost-effective compared with standard care. Costs do vary across sites and settings, and so further exploration of costs and cost-effectiveness as a part of implementation and establishment activities should be a priority.

Economic evaluations performed alongside randomized implementation trials in clinical settings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations alongside implementation trials compare the outcomes and costs of competing implementation strategies to identify the most efficient strategies. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate how economic evaluations are performed in randomized implementation trials in clinical settings and to assess the quality of these evaluations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted on 23 March 2023 to identify studies that reported on economic evaluations embedded in randomized implementation trials in clinical settings. A systematic search was applied across seven databases, and references of relevant reviews were screened for additional studies. The Drummond Checklist was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of included economic evaluations. Study characteristics and quality assessments were tabulated and described. RESULTS: Of the 6,550 studies screened for eligibility, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were published between 1990 and 2022 and from North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Africa. Most studies were conducted in the primary and out-patient care setting. Implementation costs included materials, staffing, and training, and the most common approach to collecting implementation costs was obtaining expense and budget reports. Included studies scored medium to high in terms of economic methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evidence is particularly useful for healthcare funders and service providers to inform the prioritization of implementation efforts in the context of limited resources and competing demands. The relatively small number of studies identified may be due to lack of guidance on how to conduct economic evaluations alongside implementation trials and the lack of standardized terminology used to describe implementation strategies in clinical research. We discuss these methodological gaps and present recommendations for embedding economic evaluations in implementation trials. First, reporting implementation strategies used in clinical trials and aligning these strategies with implementation outcomes and costs are an important advancement in clinical research. Second, economic evaluations of implementation trials should follow guidelines for standard clinical trial economic evaluations and adopt an appropriate costing and data collection approach. Third, hybrid trial designs are recommended to generate evidence for effective and cost-effective implementation strategies alongside clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023410186).

How environmental impact is considered in economic evaluations of critical care: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Health care is a major contributor to climate change, and critical care is one of the sector's highest carbon emitters. Health economic evaluations form an important component of critical care and may be useful in identifying economically efficient and environmentally sustainable strategies. The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesise available literature on whether and how environmental impact is considered in health economic evaluations of critical care. METHODS: A robust scoping review methodology was used to identify studies reporting on environmental impact in health economic evaluations of critical care. We searched six academic databases to locate health economic evaluations, costing studies and life cycle assessments of critical care from 1993 to present. RESULTS: Four studies met the review's inclusion criteria. Of the 278 health economic evaluations of critical care identified, none incorporated environmental impact into their assessments. Most included studies (n = 3/4) were life cycle assessments, and the remaining study was a prospective observational study. Life cycle assessments used a combination of process-based data collection and modelling to incorporate environmental impact into their economic assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Health economic evaluations of critical care have not yet incorporated environmental impact into their assessments, and few life cycle assessments exist that are specific to critical care therapies and treatments. Guidelines and standardisation regarding environmental data collection and reporting in health care are needed to support further research in the field. In the meantime, those planning health economic evaluations should include a process-based life cycle assessment to establish key environmental impacts specific to critical care.