Providing Epidemiological Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports Did Not Affect Subsequent Utilization of Spine Procedures: Secondary Outcomes from a Stepped-Wedge Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of inserting epidemiological information into lumbar spine imaging reports on subsequent nonsurgical and surgical procedures involving the thoracolumbosacral spine and sacroiliac joints. DESIGN: Analysis of secondary outcomes from the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) pragmatic stepped-wedge randomized trial. SETTING: Primary care clinics within four integrated health care systems in the United States. SUBJECTS: 238,886 patients ≥18 years of age who received lumbar diagnostic imaging between 2013 and 2016. METHODS: Clinics were randomized to receive text containing age- and modality-specific epidemiological benchmarks indicating the prevalence of common spine imaging findings in people without low back pain, inserted into lumbar spine imaging reports (the "LIRE intervention"). The study outcomes were receiving 1) any nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedure (lumbosacral epidural steroid injection, facet joint injection, or facet joint radiofrequency ablation; or sacroiliac joint injection) or 2) any surgical procedure involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine (decompression surgery or spinal fusion or other spine surgery). RESULTS: The LIRE intervention was not significantly associated with subsequent utilization of nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedures (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.09; P = 0.79) or any surgical procedure (OR = 0.99, 95 CI 0.91-1.07; P = 0.74) involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine. The intervention was also not significantly associated with any individual spine procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Inserting epidemiological text into spine imaging reports had no effect on nonsurgical or surgical procedure utilization among patients receiving lumbar diagnostic imaging.

Clinical and Payer-Based Analysis of Value of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography for Workup of Incidental Abdominal Findings.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a clinical and payer-based analysis of the value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for workup of incidental abdominal findings. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospectively designed, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study approved by our institutional review board. Sixty-nine examinations in 69 patients (45 men, 24 women; mean age, 57.7 years) who underwent single-phase postcontrast abdominal DECT studies between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017, were included. Two radiologists, blinded to study objective and design, reviewed all cases and identified incidental abdominal findings needing further imaging. All incidental findings were reviewed by 2 other investigators, who determined whether an imaging-based diagnosis could be made using DECT virtual noncontrast images and iodine maps. Additional studies and associated payer-reimbursement amounts avoided by use of DECT were estimated. All imaging costs were estimated based on the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement amounts. RESULTS: Thirty-four incidental findings (renal mass, n = 20; adrenal nodule, n = 8; pancreatic cystic lesions, n = 3; others, n = 3) were identified in 19 (27.5%) of 69 patients. Dual-energy computed tomography characterized 27 incidental findings in 15 patients and accounted for cost savings of 15 additional imaging examinations (abdominal magnetic resonance imaging, n = 11; abdominal computed tomography, n = 4). Based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement amounts, we estimated that, by abolishing the need for additional imaging use, DECT saved US $84.95 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-energy computed tomography can provide an imaging-based diagnosis of incidental abdominal findings, otherwise incompletely characterized on routine abdominal computed tomography, in approximately 21% of patients. In select patients, the monetary savings from abolishing additional imaging may reduce payer costs associated with use of DECT.

A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Epidural glucocorticoid injections are widely used to treat symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, a common cause of pain and disability in older adults. However, rigorous data are lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of these injections. METHODS: In a double-blind, multisite trial, we randomly assigned 400 patients who had lumbar central spinal stenosis and moderate-to-severe leg pain and disability to receive epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone. The patients received one or two injections before the primary outcome evaluation, performed 6 weeks after randomization and the first injection. The primary outcomes were the score on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, in which scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater physical disability) and the rating of the intensity of leg pain (on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating "pain as bad as you can imagine"). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, there were no significant between-group differences in the RMDQ score (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect between the glucocorticoid-lidocaine group and the lidocaine-alone group, -1.0 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.1; P=0.07) or the intensity of leg pain (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect, -0.2 points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 0.4; P=0.48). A prespecified secondary subgroup analysis with stratification according to type of injection (interlaminar vs. transforaminal) likewise showed no significant differences at 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, epidural injection of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01238536.).

Association of early imaging for back pain with clinical outcomes in older adults.

IMPORTANCE: In contrast to the recommendations for younger adults, many guidelines allow for older adults with back pain to undergo imaging without waiting 4 to 6 weeks. However, early imaging may precipitate interventions that do not improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare function and pain at the 12-month follow-up visit among older adults who received early imaging with those who did not receive early imaging after a new primary care visit for back pain without radiculopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort of 5239 patients 65 years or older with a new primary care visit for back pain (2011-2013) in 3 US health care systems. We matched controls 1:1 using propensity score matching of demographic and clinical characteristics, including diagnosis, pain severity, pain duration, functional status, and prior resource use. EXPOSURES: Diagnostic imaging (plain films, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) of the lumbar or thoracic spine within 6 weeks of the index visit. PRIMARY OUTCOME: back or leg pain-related disability measured by the modified Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (score range, 0-24; higher scores indicate greater disability) 12 months after enrollment. RESULTS: Among the 5239 patients, 1174 had early radiographs and 349 had early MRI/CT. At 12 months, neither the early radiograph group nor the early MRI/CT group differed significantly from controls on the disability questionnaire. The mean score for patients who underwent early radiography was 8.54 vs 8.74 among the control group (difference, -0.10 [95% CI, -0.71 to 0.50]; mixed model, P = .36). The mean score for the early MRI/CT group was 9.81 vs 10.50 for the control group (difference,-0.51 [-1.62 to 0.60]; mixed model, P = .18). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among older adults with a new primary care visit for back pain, early imaging was not associated with better 1-year outcomes. The value of early diagnostic imaging in older adults for back pain without radiculopathy is uncertain.

Back pain in seniors: the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) cohort baseline data.

BACKGROUND: Back pain represents a substantial burden globally, ranking first in a recent assessment among causes of years lived with disability. Though back pain is widely studied among working age adults, there are gaps with respect to basic descriptive epidemiology among seniors, especially in the United States. Our goal was to describe how pain, function and health-related quality of life vary by demographic and geographic factors among seniors presenting to primary care providers with new episodes of care for back pain. METHODS: We examined baseline data from the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) registry, the largest inception cohort to date of seniors presenting to a primary care provider for back pain. The sample included 5,239 patients ≥ 65 years old with a new primary care visit for back pain at three integrated health systems (Northern California Kaiser-Permanente, Henry Ford Health System [Detroit], and Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates [Boston]). We examined differences in patient characteristics across healthcare sites and associations of patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with baseline patient-reported measures of pain, function, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Patients differed across sites in demographic and other characteristics. The Detroit site had more African-American patients (50%) compared with the other sites (7-8%). The Boston site had more college graduates (68%) compared with Detroit (20%). Female sex, lower educational status, African-American race, and older age were associated with worse functional disability as measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Except for age, these factors were also associated with worse pain. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline pain and functional impairment varied substantially with a number of factors in the BOLD cohort. Healthcare site was an important factor. After controlling for healthcare site, lower education, female sex, African-American race, and older age were associated with worse physical disability and all of these factors except age were associated with worse pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT01776242; Registration date: June 13, 2012.

Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force.

Stated-preference methods are a class of evaluation techniques for studying the preferences of patients and other stakeholders. While these methods span a variety of techniques, conjoint-analysis methods-and particularly discrete-choice experiments (DCEs)-have become the most frequently applied approach in health care in recent years. Experimental design is an important stage in the development of such methods, but establishing a consensus on standards is hampered by lack of understanding of available techniques and software. This report builds on the previous ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Task Force Report: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health-A Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. This report aims to assist researchers specifically in evaluating alternative approaches to experimental design, a difficult and important element of successful DCEs. While this report does not endorse any specific approach, it does provide a guide for choosing an approach that is appropriate for a particular study. In particular, it provides an overview of the role of experimental designs for the successful implementation of the DCE approach in health care studies, and it provides researchers with an introduction to constructing experimental designs on the basis of study objectives and the statistical model researchers have selected for the study. The report outlines the theoretical requirements for designs that identify choice-model preference parameters and summarizes and compares a number of available approaches for constructing experimental designs. The task-force leadership group met via bimonthly teleconferences and in person at ISPOR meetings in the United States and Europe. An international group of experimental-design experts was consulted during this process to discuss existing approaches for experimental design and to review the task force's draft reports. In addition, ISPOR members contributed to developing a consensus report by submitting written comments during the review process and oral comments during two forum presentations at the ISPOR 16th and 17th Annual International Meetings held in Baltimore (2011) and Washington, DC (2012).

Evaluation of an experiential training program in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research for diverse researcher communities and health care organizations.

Background/Objective: The goal of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Partnership was to prepare health care professionals and researchers to conduct patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research (CER). Substantial evidence gaps, heterogeneous health care systems, and decision-making challenges in the USA underscore the need for evidence-based strategies. Methods: We engaged five community-based health care organizations that serve diverse and underrepresented patient populations from Hawai'i to Minnesota. Each partner nominated two in-house scholars to participate in the 2-year program. The program focused on seven competencies pertinent to patient-centered outcomes and CER. It combined in-person and experiential learning with asynchronous, online education, and created adaptive, pragmatic learning opportunities and a Summer Institute. Metrics included the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI), a tool designed to assess research self-efficacy and clinical research skills across 10 domains. Results: We trained 31 scholars in 3 cohorts. Mean scores in nine domains of the CRAI improved; greater improvement was observed from the beginning to the midpoint than from the midpoint to conclusion of the program. Across all three cohorts, mean scores on 52 items (100%) increased (p ≤ 0.01), and 91% of scholars reported the program improved their skills moderately/significantly. Satisfaction with the program was high (91%). Conclusions: Investigators that conduct patient-centered outcomes and CER must know how to collaborate with regional health care systems to identify priorities; pose questions; design, conduct, and disseminate observational and experimental research; and transform knowledge into practical clinical applications. Training programs such as ours can facilitate such collaborations.

Cost-effectiveness of low-dose aspirin for the prevention of preterm birth: a prospective study of the Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research.

BACKGROUND: Premature birth is associated with an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, and strategies to prevent preterm birth are few in number and resource intensive. In 2020, the ASPIRIN trial showed the efficacy of low-dose aspirin (LDA) in nulliparous, singleton pregnancies for the prevention of preterm birth. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of this therapy in low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: In this post-hoc, prospective, cost-effectiveness study, we constructed a probabilistic decision tree model to compare the benefits and costs of LDA treatment compared with standard care using primary data and published results from the ASPIRIN trial. In this analysis from a health-care sector perspective, we considered the costs and effects of LDA treatment, pregnancy outcomes, and neonatal health-care use. We did sensitivity analyses to understand the effect of the price of the LDA regimen, and the effectiveness of LDA in reducing both preterm birth and perinatal death. FINDINGS: In model simulations, LDA was associated with 141 averted preterm births, 74 averted perinatal deaths, and 31 averted hospitalisations per 10 000 pregnancies. The reduction in hospitalisation resulted in a cost of US$248 per averted preterm birth, $471 per averted perinatal death, and $15·95 per disability-adjusted life year. INTERPRETATION: LDA treatment in nulliparous, singleton pregnancies is a low-cost, effective treatment to reduce preterm birth and perinatal death. The low cost per disability-adjusted life year averted strengthens the evidence in support of prioritising the implementation of LDA in publicly funded health care in low-income and middle-income countries. FUNDING: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Study protocol- Lumbar Epidural steroid injections for Spinal Stenosis (LESS): a double-blind randomized controlled trial of epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis among older adults.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain among older adults and can cause significant disability. Despite its prevalence, treatment of spinal stenosis symptoms remains controversial. Epidural steroid injections are used with increasing frequency as a less invasive, potentially safer, and more cost-effective treatment than surgery. However, there is a lack of data to judge the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis. We describe our prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that tests the hypothesis that epidural injections with steroids plus local anesthetic are more effective than epidural injections of local anesthetic alone in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: We will recruit up to 400 patients with lumbar central canal spinal stenosis from at least 9 clinical sites over 2 years. Patients with spinal instability who require surgical fusion, a history of prior lumbar surgery, or prior epidural steroid injection within the past 6 months are excluded. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either ESI with local anesthetic or the control intervention (epidural injections with local anesthetic alone). Subjects receive up to 2 injections prior to the primary endpoint at 6 weeks, at which time they may choose to crossover to the other intervention.Participants complete validated, standardized measures of pain, functional disability, and health-related quality of life at baseline and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcomes are Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and a numerical rating scale measure of pain intensity at 6 weeks. In order to better understand their safety, we also measure cortisol, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, weight, and blood pressure at baseline, and at 3 and 6 weeks post-injection. We also obtain data on resource utilization and costs to assess cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injection. DISCUSSION: This study is the first multi-center, double-blind RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. The study will also yield data on the safety and cost-effectiveness of this procedure for older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01238536.

Study protocol: the Back Pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) registry.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is one of the most important causes of functional limitation, disability, and utilization of health care resources for adults of all ages, but especially among older adults. Despite the high prevalence of back pain in this population, important questions remain unanswered regarding the comparative effectiveness of commonly used diagnostic tests and treatments in the elderly. The overall goal of the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) project is to establish a rich, sustainable registry to describe the natural history and evaluate prospectively the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for patients 65 and older with back pain. METHODS/DESIGN: BOLD is enrolling 5,000 patients ≥ 65 years old who present to a primary care physician with a new episode of back pain. We are recruiting study participants from three integrated health systems (Kaiser-Permanente Northern California, Henry Ford Health System in Detroit and Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates/ Harvard Pilgrim Health Care in Boston). Registry patients complete validated, standardized measures of pain, back pain-related disability, and health-related quality of life at enrollment and 3, 6 and 12 months later. We also have available for analysis the clinical and administrative data in the participating health systems' electronic medical records. Using registry data, we will conduct an observational cohort study of early imaging compared to no early imaging among patients with new episodes of back pain. The aims are to: 1) identify predictors of early imaging and; 2) compare pain, functional outcomes, diagnostic testing and treatment utilization of patients who receive early imaging versus patients who do not receive early imaging. In terms of predictors, we will examine patient factors as well as physician factors. DISCUSSION: By establishing the BOLD registry, we are creating a resource that contains patient-reported outcome measures as well as electronic medical record data for elderly patients with back pain. The richness of our data will allow better matching for comparative effectiveness studies than is currently possible with existing datasets. BOLD will enrich the existing knowledge base regarding back pain in the elderly to help clinicians and patients make informed, evidence-based decisions regarding their care.

Using cost-effectiveness analysis to support research and development portfolio prioritization for product innovations in measles vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Several potential measles vaccine innovations are in development to address the shortcomings of the current vaccine. Funders need to prioritize their scarce research and development resources. This article demonstrates the usefulness of cost-effectiveness analysis to support these decisions. METHODS: This study had 4 major components: (1) identifying potential innovations, (2) developing transmission models to assess mortality and morbidity impacts, (3) estimating the unit cost impacts, and (4) assessing aggregate cost-effectiveness in United Nations Children's Fund countries through 2049. RESULTS: Four promising technologies were evaluated: aerosol delivery, needle-free injection, inhalable dry powder, and early administration DNA vaccine. They are projected to have a small absolute impact in terms of reducing the number of measles cases in most scenarios because of already improving vaccine coverage. Three are projected to reduce unit cost per dose by $0.024 to $0.170 and would improve overall cost-effectiveness. Each will require additional investments to reach the market. Over the next 40 years, the aggregate cost savings could be substantial, ranging from $98.4 million to $689.4 million. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis can help to inform research and development portfolio prioritization decisions. Three new measles vaccination technologies under development hold promise to be cost-saving from a global perspective over the long-term, even after considering additional investment costs.

Long-term effectiveness of epidural steroid injections after new episodes of low back pain in older adults.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on the long-term effectiveness of epidural steroid injections (ESI) in older adults despite the high prevalence of back and leg pain in this age group. We tested the hypotheses that older adults undergoing ESI, compared to patients not receiving ESI: (1) have worse pain, disability and quality of life ('outcomes') pre-ESI, (2) have improved outcomes after ESI and (3) have improved outcomes due to a specific ESI effect. METHODS: We prospectively studied patients ≥65 years old presenting to primary care with new episodes of back pain in three US healthcare systems (BOLD registry). Outcomes were leg and back pain intensity, disability and quality of life, assessed at baseline and 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-ups. We categorized participants as: (1) ESI within 6 months from the index visit (n = 295); (2) no ESI within 6 months (n = 4809); (3) no ESI within 6 months, propensity-score matched to group 1 (n = 483). We analysed the data using linear regression and Generalized Estimating Equations. RESULTS: Pain intensity, disability and quality of life at baseline were significantly worse at baseline in ESI patients (group 1) than in group 2. The improvement from baseline to 24 months in all outcomes was statistically significant for group 1. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between outcome trajectories for the propensity-score matched groups 1 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults treated with ESI have long-term improvement. However, the improvement is unlikely the result of a specific ESI effect. SIGNIFICANCE: In this large, two-year, prospective study in older adults with a new episode of low back pain, back pain, leg pain, disability and quality of life improved after epidural steroid injections; however, propensity-score matching revealed that the improvement was unlikely the result of a specific effect of the injections, indicating that epidural steroids are unlikely to provide long-term benefits in older adults with new episodes of back and leg pain.

Expected Organizational Costs for Inserting Prevalence Information Into Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports.

BACKGROUND: Modifying physician behavior to more closely align with guideline-based care can be challenging. Few effective strategies resulting in appropriate spine-related health care have been reported. The Lumbar Imaging With Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) intervention did not result in reductions in spine care but did in opioid prescriptions written. OBJECTIVES: To estimate organizational resource needs and costs associated with implementing a pragmatic, decision support-type intervention that inserted age- and modality-matched prevalence information for common lumbar spine imaging findings, using site-based resource use data from the LIRE trial. RESEARCH DESIGN: Time and cost estimation associated with implementing the LIRE intervention in a health organization. SUBJECTS: Providers and patients assessed in the LIRE trial. MEASURES: Expected personnel costs required to implement the LIRE intervention. RESULTS: Annual salaries were converted to daily average per person costs, ranging from $400 to $2,200 per day (base case) for personnel (range: $300-$2,600). Estimated total average cost for implementing LIRE was $5,009 (range: $2,651-$12,020), including conducting pilot testing with providers. Costs associated with a small amount of time for a radiologist (6-12 hours) and imaging-ordering providers (1-8 hours each) account for approximately 75% of the estimated total cost. CONCLUSIONS: The process of implementing an intervention for lumbar spine imaging reports containing age- and modality-appropriate epidemiological benchmarks for common imaging findings required radiologists, imaging-ordering providers, information technology specialists, and limited testing and monitoring. The LIRE intervention seems to be a relatively low-cost, evidence-based, complementary tool that can be easily integrated into the reporting of spine imaging.

Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: a societal perspective: the ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force report--Part II.

OBJECTIVES: Major guidelines regarding the application of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) have recommended the common and widespread use of the "societal perspective" for purposes of consistency and comparability. The objective of this Task Force subgroup report (one of six reports from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research [ISPOR] Task Force on Good Research Practices-Use of Drug Costs for Cost Effectiveness Analysis [Drug Cost Task Force (DCTF)]) was to review the definition of this perspective, assess its specific application in measuring drug costs, identify any limitations in theory or practice, and make recommendations regarding potential improvements. METHODS: Key articles, books, and reports in the methodological literature were reviewed, summarized, and integrated into a draft review and report. This draft report was posted for review and comment by ISPOR membership. Numerous comments and suggestions were received, and the report was revised in response to them. RESULTS: The societal perspective can be defined by three conditions: 1) the inclusion of time costs, 2) the use of opportunity costs, and 3) the use of community preferences. In practice, very few, if any, published CEAs have met all of these conditions, though many claim to have taken a societal perspective. Branded drug costs have typically used actual acquisition cost rather than the much lower social opportunity costs that would reflect only short-run manufacturing and distribution costs. This practice is understandable, pragmatic, and useful to current decision-makers. Nevertheless, this use of CEA focuses on static rather than dynamic efficacy and overlooks the related incentives for innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Our key recommendation is that current CEA practice acknowledge and embrace this limitation by adopting a new standard for the reference case as one of a "limited societal" or "health systems" perspective, using acquisition drug prices while including indirect costs and community preferences. The field of pharmacoeconomics also needs to acknowledge the limitations of this perspective when it comes to important questions of research and development costs, and incentives for innovation.

A targeted systematic review of cost analyses for implementation of simulation-based education in healthcare.

Over the past two decades, there has been an increase in the use of simulation-based education for training healthcare providers in technical and non-technical skills. Simulation education and research programs have mostly focused on the impact on clinical knowledge and improvement of technical skills rather than on cost. To study and characterize existing evidence to inform multi-stakeholder investment decisions, we performed a systematic review of the literature on costs in simulation-based education in medicine in general and in neonatal resuscitation as a particular focus. We conducted a systematic literature search of the PubMed database using two targeted queries. The first searched for cost analyses of healthcare simulation-based education more broadly, and the second was more narrowly focused on cost analyses of neonatal resuscitation training. The more general query identified 47 qualified articles. The most common specialties for education interventions were surgery (51%); obstetrics, gynecology, or pediatrics (11%); medicine, nursing, or medical school (11%); and urology (9%), accounting for over 80% of articles. The neonatal resuscitation query identified five qualified articles. The two queries identified seven large-scale training implementation studies, one in the United States and six in low-income countries. There were two articles each from Tanzania and India and one article each from Zambia and Ghana. Methods, definitions, and reported estimates varied across articles, implying interpretation, comparison, and generalization of program effects are challenging. More work is needed to understand the costs, processes, and outcomes likely to make simulation-based education programs cost-effective and scalable. To optimize return on investments in training, assessing resource requirements, associated costs, and subsequent outcomes can inform stakeholders about the potential sustainability of SBE programs. Healthcare stakeholders and decision makers will benefit from more transparent, consistent, rigorous, and explicit assessments of simulation-based education program development and implementation costs in low- and high-income countries.

Prevalence and Financial Impact of Claustrophobia, Anxiety, Patient Motion, and Other Patient Events in Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Claustrophobia, other anxiety reactions, excessive motion, and other unanticipated patient events in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) not only delay or preclude diagnostic-quality imaging but can also negatively affect the patient experience. In addition, by impeding MRI workflow, they may affect the finances of an imaging practice. This review article offers an overview of the various types of patient-related unanticipated events that occur in MRI, along with estimates of their frequency of occurrence as documented in the available literature. In addition, the financial implications of these events are discussed from a microeconomic perspective, primarily from the point of view of a radiology practice or hospital, although associated limitations and other economic viewpoints are also included. Efforts to minimize these unanticipated patient events can potentially improve not only patient satisfaction and comfort but also an imaging practice's operational efficiency and diagnostic capabilities.

The Effect of Including Benchmark Prevalence Data of Common Imaging Findings in Spine Image Reports on Health Care Utilization Among Adults Undergoing Spine Imaging: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals findings that may seem alarming but are likely unrelated to pain. Prior work has suggested that inserting data on the prevalence of imaging findings among asymptomatic individuals into spine imaging reports may reduce unnecessary subsequent interventions. Objective: To evaluate the impact of including benchmark prevalence data in routine spinal imaging reports on subsequent spine-related health care utilization and opioid prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This stepped-wedge, pragmatic randomized clinical trial included 250 401 adult participants receiving care from 98 primary care clinics at 4 large health systems in the United States. Participants had imaging of their backs between October 2013 and September 2016 without having had spine imaging in the prior year. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to October 2019. Interventions: Either standard lumbar spine imaging reports (control group) or reports containing age-appropriate prevalence data for common imaging findings in individuals without back pain (intervention group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Health care utilization was measured in spine-related relative value units (RVUs) within 365 days of index imaging. The number of subsequent opioid prescriptions written by a primary care clinician was a secondary outcome, and prespecified subgroup analyses examined results by imaging modality. Results: We enrolled 250 401 participants (of whom 238 886 [95.4%] met eligibility for this analysis, with 137 373 [57.5%] women and 105 497 [44.2%] aged >60 years) from 3278 primary care clinicians. A total of 117 455 patients (49.2%) were randomized to the control group, and 121 431 patients (50.8%) were randomized to the intervention group. There was no significant difference in cumulative spine-related RVUs comparing intervention and control conditions through 365 days. The adjusted median (interquartile range) RVU for the control group was 3.56 (2.71-5.12) compared with 3.53 (2.68-5.08) for the intervention group (difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.5%; P = .54). Rates of subsequent RVUs did not differ between groups by specific clinical findings in the report but did differ by type of index imaging (eg, computed tomography: difference, -29.3%; 95% CI, -42.1% to -13.5%; magnetic resonance imaging: difference, -3.4%; 95% CI, -8.3% to 1.8%). We observed a small but significant decrease in the likelihood of opioid prescribing from a study clinician within 1 year of the intervention (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, inserting benchmark prevalence information in lumbar spine imaging reports did not decrease subsequent spine-related RVUs but did reduce subsequent opioid prescriptions. The intervention text is simple, inexpensive, and easily implemented. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02015455.

Imaging Intussusception in Children's Hospitals in the United States: Trends, Outcomes, and Costs.

OBJECTIVE: To describe imaging utilization, outcomes, and cost in the management of intussusception between 2010 and 2017 in pediatric hospitals in the United States. METHODS: All children (under 18 years of age) with a primary diagnosis of intussusception in a large administrative database were identified. Demographics, imaging, and costs were described. RESULTS: There were 17,032 children (63.3% boys, 36.7% girls, mean age: 3.2 years) that had 20,655 hospital encounters for intussusception, and 88.5% were <5 years of age. The average length of stay was 2.8 days (median: 1 day), with rates of intensive care unit admission, 3.7%; 90-day readmission, 10.5%; and mortality, 0.2%. The surgical rate was 19.6%, and 93.5% (n = 19,301) of patients underwent imaging: 87.2% (n = 16,822) received ultrasound, 69.1% (n = 13,329) had fluoroscopy, 59% (n = 11,380) had abdominal radiographs, and 8.8% (n = 1,696) had CT. The reduction success rate for fluoroscopy was 77.9%. Surgery was more common in rural patients (26.8% versus 18.7% in urban patients, P < .001). Median encounter costs were $2,675 (interquartile range: $1,637-$5,465). Imaging cost represented a quarter (median $680, interquartile range: $372-1,069) of all costs. Higher costs (median) were associated with longer length of stay (<3 days: $858 versus >3 days: $5,342; use of CT ($4,168 versus $943 in patients without a CT), and surgery ($4,434 versus $860 without surgery). CONCLUSION: The management of intussusception is mainly nonsurgical, most frequently involving imaging with ultrasound and fluoroscopy, and resulting in excellent outcomes in the great majority of the cases. Despite playing a central role for diagnosis and management, imaging only represents a fraction of total cost.

Use of ultrasound and mHealth to improve perinatal outcomes in low and middle income countries.

The explosion of mobile health and portable obstetric ultrasound interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) reflects the optimism that technology can help reduce persistently high rates of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity in these settings. While these technology-driven interventions have had success in improving aspects of antenatal and perinatal care, they have not clearly demonstrated reductions in mortality. The expanding synergy between mobile health (mHealth) and ultrasound technology shows promise to enhance care, but it will likely take combining these technological advances with system-wide approaches that also address referral patterns and infrastructure barriers to improve outcomes.