[Developments in Emergency Care - Analysis of Emergency Cases in In- and Outpatient Care from 2009 To 2015 in Germany]. / Sektorenübergreifende Entwicklungen in der Notfallversorgung ­ Eine umfassende Analyse ambulanter und stationärer Notfälle von 2009 bis 2015.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of emergency cases, different stakeholders involved (physicians' practices vs. hospitals providing ambulatory and inpatient care) and changing patient utilization patterns lead to changes in health care needs. This study aimed at analyzing changes in patient characteristics as well as indications for in- and outpatient emergency care between 2009 and 2015 and their potential reasons. METHODS: Based on in- and outpatient routine data, we descriptively analyzed changes in emergency diagnosis, population-based emergency prevalence as well as regional differences and their changes over time. Using generalized linear models (GLM), we examined regional shifts in emergency cases being treated in ambulatory and inpatient settings. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2014 the number of cross-sectoral ambulatory emergency cases increased by 4 % (in emergency departments an increase by 42% with the highest incidence rate ratio (IRR) in the 20-34-year-old age group). Inpatient emergency cases increased by 20% with older patients representing the largest group. The ICD chapter "Diseases of the circulatory system", responsible for most inpatient hospital cases, had the second highest probability of hospital addmissions (64.7%). There were larger variations in indications for outpatient care. Regression analysis showed that there was greater use of ambulatory emergency services by the healthier (IRR 1.15 [KI 95%: 1.13; 1.16]) and urban population (IRR 1.14 [KI 95%: 1.13; 1.15]). CONCLUSIONS: The first time cross-sector analysis of indication-specific emergencies based on nationwide inpatient and outpatient billing data from 2009-2015 provides insightsinto healthcare provision at the interface between the sectors. Indications that are treated in physician practices and emergency outpatient clinics and those that lead to hospital admissions point out the potential for managing patient care appropriately. Patient behaviors in healthcare utilization can be addressed by interventions for specific patient subgroups. However, a prerequisite for the development of such measures is the inclusion of a cross-sectoral perspective in the system of emergency care.

Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches.

OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast different methods of qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) against criteria identified from the literature and to map their attributes to inform selection of the most appropriate QES method to answer research questions addressed by qualitative research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Electronic databases, citation searching, and a study register were used to identify studies reporting QES methods. Attributes compiled from 26 methodological papers (2001-2014) were used as a framework for data extraction. Data were extracted into summary tables by one reviewer and then considered within the author team. RESULTS: We identified seven considerations determining choice of methods from the methodological literature, encapsulated within the mnemonic Review question-Epistemology-Time/Timescale-Resources-Expertise-Audience and purpose-Type of data. We mapped 15 different published QES methods against these seven criteria. The final framework focuses on stand-alone QES methods but may also hold potential when integrating quantitative and qualitative data. CONCLUSION: These findings offer a contemporary perspective as a conceptual basis for future empirical investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of different methods of QES. It is hoped that this will inform appropriate selection of QES approaches.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT THROUGHOUT HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: AN EXAMPLE FROM PALLIATIVE CARE.

OBJECTIVES: Internationally, funders require stakeholder involvement throughout health technology assessment (HTA). We report successes, challenges, and lessons learned from extensive stakeholder involvement throughout a palliative care case study that demonstrates new concepts and methods for HTA. METHODS: A 5-step "INTEGRATE-HTA Model" developed within the INTEGRATE-HTA project guided the case study. Using convenience or purposive sampling or directly / indirectly identifying and approaching individuals / groups, stakeholders participated in qualitative research or consultation meetings. During scoping, 132 stakeholders, aged ≥ 18 years in seven countries (England, Italy, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Lithuania, and Poland), highlighted key issues in palliative care that assisted identification of the intervention and comparator. Subsequently stakeholders in four countries participated in face-face, telephone and / or video Skype meetings to inform evidence collection and / or review assessment results. An applicability assessment to identify contextual and implementation barriers and enablers for the case study findings involved twelve professionals in the three countries. Finally, thirteen stakeholders participated in a mock decision-making meeting in England. RESULTS: Views about the best methods of stakeholder involvement vary internationally. Stakeholders make valuable contributions in all stages of HTA; assisting decision making about interventions, comparators, research questions; providing evidence and insights into findings, gap analyses and applicability assessments. Key challenges exist regarding inclusivity, time, and resource use. CONCLUSION: Stakeholder involvement is feasible and worthwhile throughout HTA, sometimes providing unique insights. Various methods can be used to include stakeholders, although challenges exist. Recognition of stakeholder expertise and further guidance about stakeholder consultation methods is needed.

A CONSULTATION GUIDE FOR ASSESSING THE APPLICABILITY OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES:A CASE STUDY.

OBJECTIVES: The translation of research findings into policy and practice is crucially dependent on the applicability of such findings in a given decision-making context. We explored in a case study whether a generic consultation guide to assess the applicability of a health technology could be rapidly deployed and deliver useful insights. METHODS: A consultation guide based on the context and implementation for complex interventions (CICI) framework was developed and piloted to assess the applicability of reinforced home-based palliative care in three European countries. Individual consultations in England and Germany and a panel discussion in Poland were completed. RESULTS: Various barriers may hinder successful implementation of reinforced home-based palliative care in the three countries. Whilst the experts across all countries emphasized the lack of funding along with organization and structure as major barriers, information varied by country for many of the other identified barriers and facilitators. Participants in the pilot study provided positive feedback in terms of understanding the topic and purpose of the consultation, and both individual and panel consultations could be easily implemented. CONCLUSIONS: In this case study, the consultation guide presented a pragmatic, ready-to-use tool to assess the applicability of a health technology. As shown here, it can be used in a generic manner without discrete empirical information on the technology in question or, ideally, makes use of specific information collected as part of a HTA. Further studies are needed to validate this guide and apply it to other types of health technologies and more diverse decision-making contexts.

AN INTEGRATED PERSPECTIVE ON THE ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES: INTEGRATE-HTA.

OBJECTIVES: Current health technology assessment (HTA) is not well equipped to assess complex technologies as insufficient attention is being paid to the diversity in patient characteristics and preferences, context, and implementation. Strategies to integrate these and several other aspects, such as ethical considerations, in a comprehensive assessment are missing. The aim of the European research project INTEGRATE-HTA was to develop a model for an integrated HTA of complex technologies. METHODS: A multi-method, four-stage approach guided the development of the INTEGRATE-HTA Model: (i) definition of the different dimensions of information to be integrated, (ii) literature review of existing methods for integration, (iii) adjustment of concepts and methods for assessing distinct aspects of complex technologies in the frame of an integrated process, and (iv) application of the model in a case study and subsequent revisions. RESULTS: The INTEGRATE-HTA Model consists of five steps, each involving stakeholders: (i) definition of the technology and the objective of the HTA; (ii) development of a logic model to provide a structured overview of the technology and the system in which it is embedded; (iii) evidence assessment on effectiveness, economic, ethical, legal, and socio-cultural aspects, taking variability of participants, context, implementation issues, and their interactions into account; (iv) populating the logic model with the data generated in step 3; (v) structured process of decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: The INTEGRATE-HTA Model provides a structured process for integrated HTAs of complex technologies. Stakeholder involvement in all steps is essential as a means of ensuring relevance and meaningful interpretation of the evidence.

Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of complex interventions, as well as their success in reaching relevant populations, is critically influenced by their implementation in a given context. Current conceptual frameworks often fail to address context and implementation in an integrated way and, where addressed, they tend to focus on organisational context and are mostly concerned with specific health fields. Our objective was to develop a framework to facilitate the structured and comprehensive conceptualisation and assessment of context and implementation of complex interventions. METHODS: The Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework was developed in an iterative manner and underwent extensive application. An initial framework based on a scoping review was tested in rapid assessments, revealing inconsistencies with respect to the underlying concepts. Thus, pragmatic utility concept analysis was undertaken to advance the concepts of context and implementation. Based on these findings, the framework was revised and applied in several systematic reviews, one health technology assessment (HTA) and one applicability assessment of very different complex interventions. Lessons learnt from these applications and from peer review were incorporated, resulting in the CICI framework. RESULTS: The CICI framework comprises three dimensions-context, implementation and setting-which interact with one another and with the intervention dimension. Context comprises seven domains (i.e., geographical, epidemiological, socio-cultural, socio-economic, ethical, legal, political); implementation consists of five domains (i.e., implementation theory, process, strategies, agents and outcomes); setting refers to the specific physical location, in which the intervention is put into practise. The intervention and the way it is implemented in a given setting and context can occur on a micro, meso and macro level. Tools to operationalise the framework comprise a checklist, data extraction tools for qualitative and quantitative reviews and a consultation guide for applicability assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The CICI framework addresses and graphically presents context, implementation and setting in an integrated way. It aims at simplifying and structuring complexity in order to advance our understanding of whether and how interventions work. The framework can be applied in systematic reviews and HTA as well as primary research and facilitate communication among teams of researchers and with various stakeholders.

Balancing costs and benefits at different stages of medical innovation: a systematic review of Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).

BACKGROUND: The diffusion of health technologies from translational research to reimbursement depends on several factors included the results of health economic analysis. Recent research identified several flaws in health economic concepts. Additionally, the heterogeneous viewpoints of participating stakeholders are rarely systematically addressed in current decision-making. Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) provides an opportunity to tackle these issues. The objective of this study was to review applications of MCDA methods in decisions addressing the trade-off between costs and benefits. METHODS: Using basic steps of the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of the healthcare literature was performed to identify original research articles from January 1990 to April 2014. Medline, PubMed, Springer Link and specific journals were searched. Using predefined categories, bibliographic records were systematically extracted regarding the type of policy applications, MCDA methodology, criteria used and their definitions. RESULTS: 22 studies were included in the analysis. 15 studies (68 %) used direct MCDA approaches and seven studies (32 %) used preference elicitation approaches. Four studies (19 %) focused on technologies in the early innovation process. The majority (18 studies - 81 %) examined reimbursement decisions. Decision criteria used in studies were obtained from the literature research and context-specific studies, expert opinions, and group discussions. The number of criteria ranged between three up to 15. The most frequently used criteria were health outcomes (73 %), disease impact (59 %), and implementation of the intervention (40 %). Economic criteria included cost-effectiveness criteria (14 studies, 64 %), and total costs/budget impact of an intervention (eight studies, 36 %). The process of including economic aspects is very different among studies. Some studies directly compare costs with other criteria while some include economic consideration in a second step. CONCLUSIONS: In early innovation processes, MCDA can provide information about stakeholder preferences as well as evidence needs in further development. However, only a minority of these studies include economic features due to the limited evidence. The most important economic criterion cost-effectiveness should not be included from a technical perspective as it is already a composite of costs and benefit. There is a significant lack of consensus in methodology employed by the various studies which highlights the need for guidance on application of MCDA at specific phases of an innovation.

Exploring the perspectives and preferences for HTA across German healthcare stakeholders using a multi-criteria assessment of a pulmonary heart sensor as a case study.

BACKGROUND: Health technology assessment and healthcare decision-making are based on multiple criteria and evidence, and heterogeneous opinions of participating stakeholders. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) offers a potential framework to systematize this process and take different perspectives into account. The objectives of this study were to explore perspectives and preferences across German stakeholders when appraising healthcare interventions, using multi-criteria assessment of a heart pulmonary sensor as a case study. METHODS: An online survey of 100 German healthcare stakeholders was conducted using a comprehensive MCDA framework (EVIDEM V2.2). Participants were asked to provide i) relative weights for each criterion of the framework; ii) performance scores for a health pulmonary sensor, based on available data synthesized for each criterion; and iii) qualitative feedback on the consideration of contextual criteria. Normalized weights and scores were combined using a linear model to calculate a value estimate across different stakeholders. Differences across types of stakeholders were explored. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 54 participants. The most important criteria were efficacy, patient reported outcomes, disease severity, safety, and quality of evidence (relative weight >0.075 each). Compared to all participants, policymakers gave more weight to budget impact and quality of evidence. The quantitative appraisal of a pulmonary heart sensor revealed differences in scoring performance of this intervention at the criteria level between stakeholder groups. The highest value estimate of the sensor reached 0.68 (on a scale of 0 to 1, 1 representing maximum value) for industry representatives and the lowest value of 0.40 was reported for policymakers, compared to 0.48 for all participants. Participants indicated that most qualitative criteria should be considered and their impact on the quantitative appraisal was captured transparently. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified important variations in perspectives across German stakeholders when appraising a healthcare intervention and revealed that MCDA can demonstrate the value of a specified technology for all participating stakeholders. Better understanding of these differences at the criteria level, in particular between policymakers and industry representatives, is important to focus innovation aligned with patient health and healthcare system values and constraints.

The main cost drivers in dementia: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Because of the increasing prevalence of dementia worldwide, combined with limited healthcare expenditures, a better understanding of the main cost drivers of dementia in different care settings is needed. METHODS: A systematic review of cost-of-illness (COI) studies in dementia was conducted from 2003 to 2012, searching the following databases: PubMed (Medline), Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect (Embase) and National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database. Costs (per patient) by care setting were analyzed for total, direct, indirect and informal costs and related to the following: (1) cost perspective and (2) disease severity. RESULTS: In total, 27 studies from 14 different healthcare systems were evaluated. In the included studies, total annual costs for dementia of up to $70,911 per patient (mixed setting) were estimated (average estimate of total costs = $30,554). The shares of cost categories in the total costs for dementia indicate significant differences for different care settings. Overall main cost drivers of dementia are informal costs due to home based long term care and nursing home expenditures rather than direct medical costs (inpatient and outpatient services, medication). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review highlight the significant economic burden of dementia for patients, families and healthcare systems and thus are important for future health policy planning. The significant variation of cost estimates for different care settings underlines the need to understand and address the financial burden of dementia from both perspectives. For health policy planning in dementia, future COI studies should follow a quality standard protocol with clearly defined cost components and separate estimates by care setting and disease severity.

A systematic review of health technology assessment tools in sub-Saharan Africa: methodological issues and implications.

BACKGROUND: Health technology assessment (HTA) is mostly used in the context of high- and middle-income countries. Many "resource-poor" settings, which have the greatest need for critical assessment of health technology, have a limited basis for making evidence-based choices. This can lead to inappropriate use of technologies, a problem that could be addressed by HTA that enables the efficient use of resources, which is especially crucial in such settings. There is a lack of clarity about which HTA tools should be used in these settings. This research aims to provide an overview of proposed HTA tools for "resource-poor" settings with a specific focus on sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was conducted using basic steps from the PRISMA guidelines. Studies that described HTA tools applicable for "resource-limited" settings were identified and critically appraised. Only papers published between 2003 and 2013 were included. The identified tools were assessed according to a checklist with methodological criteria. RESULTS: Six appropriate tools that are applicable in the SSA setting and cover methodological robustness and ease of use were included in the review. Several tools fulfil these criteria, such as the KNOW ESSENTIALS tool, Mini-HTA tool, and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis but their application in the SSA context remains limited. The WHO CHOICE method is a standardized decision making tool for choosing interventions but is limited to their cost-effectiveness. Most evaluation of health technology in SSA focuses on priority setting. There is a lack of HTA tools that can be used for the systematic assessment of technology in the SSA context. CONCLUSIONS: An appropriate HTA tool for "resource-constrained" settings, and especially SSA, should address all important criteria of decision making. By combining the two most promising tools, KNOW ESSENTIALS and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, appropriate analysis of evidence with a robust and flexible methodology could be applied for the SSA setting.

Registries of implantable medical devices in Europe.

BACKGROUND: In early 2012, a number of serious events in the implant area raised public awareness and started a discussion on safety issues and monitoring medical devices in academics and politics. Apparently, there is a lack in the surveillance of medical devices. Therefore, the objective of this work is to detect and classify implant registries in Europe. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A systematic search of literature was carried out to identify the different types of registries. Furthermore, to characterize the implant registries by different criteria a medical device classification system was established. One hundred and one European registries were found. Most registries exist in the field of cardiac implants and arthroplasty (38 and 29) and their distribution showed variation within Europe. For a lot of implant categories, none or very few registries could be identified. Some countries run more registries than others. There are a lot of differences in aim and structure among the registries. CONCLUSION: There is only a limited number of reviews on registries and a centralized monitoring system in Europe is missing. Our results reveal a lack of transparency concerning number, aim, structure and quality of registries. This is crucial, as registries work as early warning systems for identifying and notifying patients at risk.

Clinical assessment of amyloid imaging in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Healthcare systems face an increased prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and increasing costs. The use of molecular biomarkers and imaging could offer an effective solution for these issues. The objective of this study was to assess amyloid imaging regarding clinical utility and impact. METHODS: A literature search was performed in several databases, searching articles between 2008 and January 2013 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The results are reported according to the clinical correlates of amyloid imaging. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included in the final analysis. Five studies evaluated amyloid imaging for diagnosis. Nine studies assessed the prognostic value. Twenty-two studies provided correlations to cognitive measures. Amyloid imaging provides a high reliability in diagnosis and prognosis, but cognitive measures only showed weak correlations. CONCLUSION: The evidence clearly indicated that amyloid imaging has not arrived yet in clinical practice. However, it can provide substantial benefits in special aspects of diagnostic accuracy and for a diagnosis up to 10 years before clinical diagnosis. This can be a base for early preventive treatment strategies such as anti-amyloid therapy. In this context, amyloid imaging is crucial to understand the early pathologic process in Alzheimer's disease.

An international review of the main cost-effectiveness drivers of virtual colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: is the tide changing due to adherence?

OBJECTIVES: The majority of recent cost-effectiveness reviews concluded that computerised tomographic colonography (CTC) is not a cost-effective colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategy yet. The objective of this review is to examine cost-effectiveness of CTC versus optical colonoscopy (COL) for CRC screening and identify the main drivers influencing cost-effectiveness due to the emergence of new research. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted for cost-effectiveness studies comparing CTC and COL as a screening tool and providing outcomes in life-years saved, published between January 2006 and November 2012. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the review. There was considerable heterogeneity in modelling complexity and methodology. Different model assumptions and inputs had large effects on resulting cost-effectiveness of CTC and COL. CTC was found to be dominant or cost-effective in three studies, assuming the most favourable scenario. COL was found to be not cost effective in one study. CONCLUSIONS: CTC has the potential to be a cost-effective CRC screening strategy when compared to COL. The most important assumptions that influenced the cost-effectiveness of CTC and COL were related to CTC threshold-based reporting of polyps, CTC cost, CTC sensitivity for large polyps, natural history of adenoma transition to cancer, AAA parameters and importantly, adherence. There is a strong need for a differential consideration of patient adherence and compliance to CTC and COL. Recent research shows that laxative-free CTC screening has the potential to become a good alternative screening method for CRC as it can improve patient uptake of screening.

Cost of illness in colorectal cancer: an international review.

OBJECTIVES: Given the current-and increasing-pressure to limit expenditure on health care provision in many countries, a better understanding of the cost burden of colorectal cancer is needed. Cost-of-illness studies and reviews thereof can be a useful tool for analysing and critically evaluating the cost-related development of colorectal cancer, and they highlight important cost drivers. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted from 2002 to 2012 to identify cost-of-illness studies related to colorectal cancer, searching the Medline, PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Library and the York CRD databases. RESULTS: Among the 10 studies (from France, the US, Ireland and Taiwan) included in the review, 6 studies reported prevalence-based estimates and 4 studies focussed on incidence-based data. In the studies included in the review, long-term costs for colorectal cancer of up to $50,175 per patient (2008 values) were estimated. Most of the studies in the review showed that the initial and terminal phases of colorectal cancer care are the most expensive, with continuing treatment being the least costly phase. One study also highlighted that stage I CRC disease was the least costly and stage III the most costly of all 4 stages, due to the high cost impact of biological agents. CONCLUSIONS: This review has highlighted a trend for rising costs associated with CRC, which is linked to the increasing use of targeted biological therapies. COI studies in colorectal cancer can identify specific components and areas of care that are especially costly, thereby focussing attention on more cost-effective approaches, which is especially relevant to the increased use of biological agents in the field of personalised medicine. COI studies are an important tool for further health economic evaluations of personalised medicine.