A systematic review of economic evaluations of preoperative smoking cessation for preventing surgical complications.

BACKGROUND: Whilst there is a substantial body of evidence on the costs and benefits of smoking cessation generally, the benefits of routinely providing smoking cessation for surgical populations are less well known. This review summarises the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of preoperative smoking cessation to prevent surgical complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the Cochrane, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment, Medline Complete and Scopus databases was conducted from inception until June 23, 2021. Peer-reviewed, English-language articles describing economic evaluations of preoperative smoking cessation interventions to prevent surgical complications were included. Search results were independently screened for potentially eligible studies. Study characteristics, economic evaluation methods and cost-effectiveness results were extracted by one reviewer and details checked by a second. Two authors independently assessed reporting and methodological quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement (CHEERS) and the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument checklist (QHES) respectively. RESULTS: After removing duplicates, twenty full text articles were screened from 1423 database records, resulting in six included economic evaluations. Studies from the United States (n = 4), France (n = 1) and Spain (n = 1) were reported between 2009 and 2020. Four evaluations were conducted from a payer perspective. Two-thirds of evaluations were well-conducted (mean score 83) and well-reported (on average, 86% items reported). All studies concluded preoperative smoking cessation is cost-effective for preventing surgical complications; results ranged from cost saving to €53,131 per quality adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative smoking cessation is cost-effective for preventing surgical complications from a payer or provider perspective when compared to standard care. There is no evidence from outside the United States and Europe to inform healthcare providers, funders and policy-makers in other jurisdictions and more information is needed to clarify the optimal point of implementation to maximise cost-effectiveness of preoperative smoking cessation intervention. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021257740. RESEARCH REGISTRY REGISTRATION NUMBER: reviewregistry1369.

Is establishing a specialist back pain assessment and management service in primary care a safe and effective model? Twelve-month results from the Back pain Assessment Clinic (BAC) prospective cohort pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To report on the design, implementation and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the Back pain Assessment Clinic (BAC) model. DESIGN: BAC is a new, community-based specialist service for assessing and managing neck and low back pain (LBP). The BAC pilot was supported by a Victorian Department of Health and Human Services grant and was evaluated using the Victorian Innovation Reform Impact Assessment Framework (VIRIAF). Data were obtained by auditing BAC activity (22 July 2014 to 30 June 2015) and conducting surveys and interviews of patients, stakeholders and referrers. SETTING: Tertiary and primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with neck and LBP referred for outpatient surgical consultation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: VIRIAF outcomes: (1) access to care; (2) appropriate and safe care; (3) workforce optimisation and integration; and (4) efficiency and sustainability. RESULTS: A total of 522 patients were seen during the pilot. Most were referred to hospital services by general practitioners (87%) for LBP (63%) and neck pain (24%). All patients were seen within 10 weeks of referral and commenced community-based allied health intervention within 2-4 weeks of assessment in BAC. Of patients seen, 34% had medications adjusted, 57% were referred for physiotherapy, 3.2% to pain services, 1.1% to rheumatology and 1.8% for surgical review. Less MRI scans were ordered in BAC (6.4%) compared with traditional spinal surgical clinics (89.8%), which translated to a cost-saving of $52 560 over 12 months. Patient and staff satisfaction was high. There have been no patient complaints or adverse incidents. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of the BAC pilot suggests it is a potentially safe and cost-saving alternative model of care. Results of the BAC pilot merit further evaluation to determine the potential cost-effectiveness, longer term and broader societal impact of implementing BAC more widely.

Universal No-fault Compensation is Associated With Improved Return to Work Rates in Spine Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study and systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of "universal no-fault compensation" upon return-to-work rates in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion, and then to make comparison with workers' compensation (WC) and non-workers' compensation (non-WC) claimants. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Compensation has an adverse influence upon outcomes and return to work in lumbar spinal fusion. It is unclear whether this is due to the compensation per se, or due to the features of WC including its adversarial environment, delayed resolution of claims, and need for disability enhancement to promote compensation. The New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is a universal no-fault system offering early treatment and salary reimbursement. Given the differing features of these compensation systems, comparison of return-to-work rates may give insight into the differing outcomes for the two compensation systems. METHODS: From a cohort of 428 patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion, 178 patients covered by ACC system underwent a structured interview to determine pre-injury, pre-surgical, and post-surgical work status. A systematic literature review was performed relating to lumbar spine fusion, return to work, and WC. RESULTS: The return-to-work rate for the ACC patients in work at the time of their injury was 81%. The systematic review of 21 studies including 2519 subjects revealed a return-to-work rate of 40% for WC patients, and 74% for non-WC patients (P < 0.001). There was a significantly greater return-to-work rate for ACC patients than WC patients (P < 0.001), but no difference between ACC and non-WC patients. CONCLUSION: The return-to-work rates for a universal no-fault compensation system are higher than those under WC cover, and are compatible with non-WC cases. This suggests that the features of WC may contribute to the inferior return-to-work rates.