A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of C-reactive protein point-of-care testing to guide antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care settings in Ireland: a decision-analytic model.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 60% of antibiotics issued in primary care are for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs), which are largely self-limiting and do not require antibiotics. Point-of-care testing (POCT) devices that measure C-reactive protein (CRP)-a biomarker for infection-can be used to guide prescribing decisions. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of a national CRP POCT program to guide antibiotic prescribing for acute RTIs in primary care in Ireland. METHODS: We compared CRP POCT with and without enhanced communication skills training of general practitioners against usual care. A probabilistic decision tree was used to investigate cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the healthcare system. The model considered outcomes for the Irish population over a 5-year time horizon. Inputs were synthesized from published studies. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using an incremental cost per prescription avoided. RESULTS: CRP POCT with and without communication training were more costly but more effective than usual care over 5 years. CRP POCT alone was dominated, while the combined intervention had a cost per prescription avoided of €111 (95% CI: €45-243) versus usual care. The budget impact was costly over 5 years, but potential budget savings were available depending on the implementation scenario. The findings were largely robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: CRP POCT reduces antibiotic prescribing, but increases healthcare costs. The most cost-effective program of CRP POCT includes enhanced communication skills training. Further research on the impact of CRP POCT beyond 5 years is warranted, as well as the potential impact on antimicrobial resistance.

Quantifying patient preferences for symptomatic breast clinic referral: a decision analysis study.

OBJECTIVES: Decision analysis study that incorporates patient preferences and probability estimates to investigate the impact of women's preferences for referral or an alternative strategy of watchful waiting if faced with symptoms that could be due to breast cancer. SETTING: Community-based study. PARTICIPANTS: Asymptomatic women aged 30-60 years. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were presented with 11 health scenarios that represent the possible consequences of symptomatic breast problems. Participants were asked the risk of death that they were willing to take in order to avoid the health scenario using the standard gamble utility method. This process was repeated for all 11 health scenarios. Formal decision analysis for the preferred individual decision was then estimated for each participant. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The preferred diagnostic strategy was either watchful waiting or referral to a breast clinic. Sensitivity analysis was used to examine how each varied according to changes in the probabilities of the health scenarios. RESULTS: A total of 35 participants completed the interviews, with a median age 41 years (IQR 35-47 years). The majority of the study sample was employed (n=32, 91.4%), with a third-level (university) education (n=32, 91.4%) and with knowledge of someone with breast cancer (n=30, 85.7%). When individual preferences were accounted for, 25 (71.4%) patients preferred watchful waiting to referral for triple assessment as their preferred initial diagnostic strategy. Sensitivity analysis shows that referral for triple assessment becomes the dominant strategy at the upper probability estimate (18%) of breast cancer in the community. CONCLUSIONS: Watchful waiting is an acceptable strategy for most women who present to their general practitioner (GP) with breast symptoms. These findings suggest that current referral guidelines should take more explicit account of women's preferences in relation to their GPs initial management strategy.

Health and use of health services of people who are homeless and at risk of homelessness who receive free primary health care in Dublin.

BACKGROUND: Homeless populations experience poorer physical and mental health, and more barriers to accessing adequate healthcare. This study investigates the health of this population, following the provision of a free to access primary care service for homeless people in Dublin (Safetynet). The health of this group will be compared to previous studies on homelessness conducted in Dublin prior to the establishment of this service (in 1997 and 2005). METHODS: Participants were recruited through Safetynet clinics. A 133-item questionnaire was administered to determine participants' physical and mental well-being, use of health services and healthcare needs. Prescription data was extracted from participants' electronic health records. RESULTS: A total of 105 participants were recruited. The majority were < 45 years of age (69%), male (75%), single (52%), Irish (74%) and had children (52%). Multimorbidity was common; with 5.3 ± 2.7 (mean ± SD) physical conditions reported per person. A large proportion of participants had at some point received a formal diagnosis of a mental health condition (70%; 73/105), including depression (50%; 52/105), addiction disorder (39%), anxiety (36%; 38/105), schizophrenia (13%; 14/105) and bipolar disorder (6%; 6/105). With regards to illicit drug use, 60% (63/105) of participants reported ever using drugs, while 33% (35/105) reported being active drug users. Based on AUDIT C criteria, 53% had an alcohol problem. Compared to previous studies, participants reported more positive ratings of health (70% vs. 57% in 1997 and 46% in 2005). The proportion of participants on one or more prescription medication was higher than in previous studies (81% vs. 32% in 1997 and 49% in 2005) and there was a decrease in attendance at outpatients departments (17% vs. 27% in 2005) and a trend towards a decrease in attendance at Accident and Emergency departments (A & E) (29% vs. 37% in 2005). CONCLUSIONS: This vulnerable population has many physical and mental health problems. Use of drugs, alcohol and smoking is common. Following the establishment of Safetynet, self-reported health was rated more positively, there was also a decrease in the use of A & E and outpatient services and an increase in prescription medicines.

Comparison of self-reported health & healthcare utilisation between asylum seekers and refugees: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Adult refugees and asylum seekers living in Western countries experience a high prevalence of mental health problems, especially post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety. This study compares and contrasts the prevalence of health problems, and potential risk factors as well as the utilisation of health services by asylum seekers and refugees in the Irish context. METHODS: Cross sectional study using validated self reported health status questionnaires of adult asylum seekers (n = 60) and refugees (n = 28) from 30 countries, living in Ireland. Outcome measures included: general health status (SF-36), presence of PTSD symptoms and anxiety/depression symptoms. Data on chronic conditions and pre or post migration stressors are also reported. The two groups are compared for utilisation of the health care system and the use of over the counter medications. RESULTS: Asylum seekers were significantly more likely than refugees to report symptoms of PTSD (OR 6.3, 95% CI: 2.2-17.9) and depression/anxiety (OR 5.8, 95% CI: 2.2-15.4), while no significant difference was found in self-reported general health. When adjusted by multivariable regression, the presence of more than one chronic disease (OR 4.0, 95%CI: 1.3-12.7; OR 3.4, 95% CI: 1.2-10.1), high levels of pre migration stressors (OR 3.6, 95% CI: 1.1-11.9; OR 3.3, 95% CI: 1.0-10.4) or post migration stressors (OR 17.3, 95% CI: 4.9-60.8; OR 3.9, 95% CI: 1.2-12.3) were independent predictors of self reported PTSD or depression/anxiety symptoms respectively, however, residence status was no longer significantly associated with PTSD or depression/anxiety. Residence status may act as a marker for other explanatory variables; our results show it has a strong relationship with post migration stressors (chi2 = 19.74, df = 1, P < 0.001).In terms of health care utilisation, asylum seekers use GP services more often than refugees, while no significant difference was found between these groups for use of dentists, medication, hospitalisation or mental health services. CONCLUSION: Asylum seekers have a higher level of self reported PTSD and depression/anxiety symptoms compared to refugees. However, residence status appears to act as a marker for post migration stressors. Compared to refugees, asylum seekers utilise GP services more often, but not mental health services.