The cost of child abuse and neglect in France: The case of children in placement before their fourth birthday.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of child abuse and neglect and its consequences on health, very few studies have evaluated the trajectories of children in placement in France, and there are no cost studies available. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of abuse and neglect in children in placement before their 4th birthday in France. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A cohort of children in placement before their 4th birthday in a single nursery between February 1994 and June 2001 was followed from birth until they left care. METHODS: Child protective services (CPS), health, health and social, and judiciary services utilization was derived from a qualitative analysis of the children's files and valued with their unit costs in 2013 euros from the societal perspective. Total costs and mean annual cost per child followed by CPS were calculated overall, by cost category, and by status at admission to the nursery. RESULTS: 129 children were included. Mean age at first admission was 1.9 years (SD = 1.3). The mean length of follow-up by CPS was 14.3 years (SD = 5.0). Mean annual cost per child was estimated at €53,265 (SD = 42,077), with CPS costs representing 78% of costs. 80% of health care costs were due to psychiatric care. Children with no identified psychosocial risk factors had significantly higher psychiatric care costs and health and social care costs than pre-term children and children with identified psychosocial risk factors. CONCLUSION: More research should be carried out to address early and comprehensively the multiple needs of children followed by CPS in the short- and long-term.

The PRINTEMPS study: protocol of a cluster-randomized controlled trial of the local promotion of a smartphone application and associated website for the prevention of suicidal behaviors in the adult general population in France.

BACKGROUND: Suicide constitutes a cause of death which could be prevented by e-health programs accessible to the general population. Effective promotion has the potential to maximize the uptake of such programs. However, few e-health programs have been combined with promotion campaigns. The primary objective of this trial is to assess the effectiveness of a tailored promotion, at a local level, of a mobile application and website offering evidence-based content for suicide prevention (the StopBlues program), and to compare the effectiveness of two types of local promotion in terms of their impact on suicidal acts. Secondary objectives focus on the effectiveness of the promotion in terms of the intensity of utilization of the StopBlues program, help-seeking behaviors and the level of psychological impairment of program users. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a three-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomized controlled trial, with before-and-after observation. Thirty-four clusters, corresponding to geographical areas sharing a common local authority in France, will be included. They will be randomly assigned to one of the following arms with a ratio of 1:1:1: a control group; a basic promotion group in which promotion of the StopBlues program will be done by local authorities; and an intensified promotion group in which basic promotion will be supplemented by an additional one in a general practitioner's waiting room. The primary outcome measure will be the number of suicidal acts within each cluster over a 12-month period following the launch of the intervention. Baseline data will be collected for each cluster over the 12-month period prior to the trial. Secondary outcomes will include length of use of the StopBlues program, measures of help-seeking behaviors and level of psychological distress among users of the program, as well as the cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of its promotion. A more sustained promotion by local authorities will also be implemented after 12 months in the control group and assessed using the same outcome measures. DISCUSSION: This research should contribute to the sparse evidence base regarding the promotion of e-health programs and will support the wider delivery of the intervention evaluated if proven effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03565562. Registered on 11 June 2018.

Efficacy of double-balloon enteroscopy for small-bowel polypectomy: clinical and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated first the feasibility of endoscopic small-bowel polypectomy and second, the economic aspects, by comparing the cost of endoscopic and surgical polyp resection. METHODS: A prospective, observational, multicenter study included 494 patients with positive capsule endoscopy (CE) before double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE). We selected only CE with at least one polyp. The retrospective economic evaluation compared patients treated by DBE or surgery for small-bowel polypectomy. Hospital readmission because of repeat polyp resection or complication-related interventions was noted. The 1-year cost was estimated from the viewpoint of the healthcare system and included procedures, hospital admissions and follow up. RESULTS: CE indicated one or more polyps in 62 (12.5%) patients (32 males, 49 ± 5 years), all of whom underwent a successful DBE exploration. The DBE polyp diagnostic yield was 58%. There were no major complications. A total of 26 (42%) patients in the DBE group and 19 (39%) in the control group required hospital readmission. All readmissions in the DBE group were for repeat procedures to remove all polyps, and in the control group, for surgical complications. The total cost of the initial hospitalization (€4014 ± 2239 DBE versus €11,620 ± 7183 surgery, p < 0.0001) and the 1-year total cost (€8438 ± 9227 DBE versus €13,402 ± 7919 surgery, p < 0.0001) were lower in the DBE group. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic polypectomy was efficient and safe. The total cost at 1 year was less for endoscopy than surgery. DBE should be proposed as the first-line treatment for small-bowel polyp resection.

Medical and Economic Evaluation of FOREseal Bioabsorbable Reinforcement Sleeves Compared With Current Standard of Care for Reducing Air Leakage Duration After Lung Resection for Malignancy: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of alginate staple-line reinforcement of fissure openings as compared with stapling alone, with or without tissue sealant or glue, in reducing the incidence and duration of air leakage after pulmonary lobectomy for malignancy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: No randomized trial evaluating alginate staple-line reinforcement has been performed to date. METHODS: The Staple-line Reinforcement for Prevention of Pulmonary Air Leakage study was a multicenter randomized trial, with blinded evaluation of endpoints. Patients over 18 years of age scheduled for elective open lobectomy or bilobectomy for malignancy were eligible for enrollment. At thoracotomy, patients were deemed ineligible if an unanticipated pneumonectomy was indicated, or if air leakage occurred after the liberation of pleural adhesions. Otherwise, if the fissure was incomplete or the lung had an emphysematous appearance, patients were randomized to either standard management or interventional procedure consisting of fissure opening with linear cutting staplers buttressed with paired alginate sleeves (FOREseal). The number of eligible patients necessary in each randomization arm was estimated to be 190, and an outcomes analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Of the 611 patients consented to study enrollment, 380 met the inclusion criteria and were randomized. Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary endpoint of air leak duration was not different between the 2 groups: 1 day (range: 0-2 d) in the FOREseal group and 1 day (range: 0-3 d) in the control group (P = 0.8357). In addition, the 2 groups were similar in terms of the proportion of patients presenting with prolonged air leakage (7.8% in the FOREseal group vs 11.3% in the control group, P = 0.264) and the average duration of chest drainage (P = 0.107). Procedure costs were comparable for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: FOREseal did not demonstrate a significant advantage over standard treatment alone.

A comparison of hospital administrative costs in eight nations: US costs exceed all others by far.

A few studies have noted the outsize administrative costs of US hospitals, but no research has compared these costs across multiple nations with various types of health care systems. We assembled a team of international health policy experts to conduct just such a challenging analysis of hospital administrative costs across eight nations: Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States. We found that administrative costs accounted for 25.3 percent of total US hospital expenditures--a percentage that is increasing. Next highest were the Netherlands (19.8 percent) and England (15.5 percent), both of which are transitioning to market-oriented payment systems. Scotland and Canada, whose single-payer systems pay hospitals global operating budgets, with separate grants for capital, had the lowest administrative costs. Costs were intermediate in France and Germany (which bill per patient but pay separately for capital projects) and in Wales. Reducing US per capita spending for hospital administration to Scottish or Canadian levels would have saved more than $150 billion in 2011. This study suggests that the reduction of US administrative costs would best be accomplished through the use of a simpler and less market-oriented payment scheme.