The Cost-Effectiveness of Using PARO, a Therapeutic Robotic Seal, to Reduce Agitation and Medication Use in Dementia: Findings from a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the within-trial costs and cost-effectiveness of using PARO, compared with a plush toy and usual care, for reducing agitation and medication use in people with dementia in long-term care. DESIGN: An economic evaluation, nested within a cluster-randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-eight facilities in South-East Queensland, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 415 residents, all aged 60 years or older, with documented diagnoses of dementia. INTERVENTION: Facilities were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: PARO (individual, nonfacilitated 15-minute sessions, 3 afternoons per week for 10 weeks); plush toy (as per PARO but with artificial intelligence disabled); and usual care. MEASUREMENTS: The incremental cost per Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory-Short Form (CMAI-SF) point averted from a provider's perspective. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (BLINDED FOR REVIEW). RESULTS: For the within-trial costs, the PARO group was $50.47 more expensive per resident compared with usual care, whereas the plush toy group was $37.26 more expensive than usual care. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in agitation levels after the 10-week intervention. The point estimates of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $13.01 for PARO and $12.85 for plush toy per CMAI-SF point averted relative to usual care. CONCLUSION: The plush toy used in this study offered marginally greater value for money than PARO in improving agitation. However, these costs are much lower than values estimated for psychosocial group activities and sensory interventions, suggesting that both a plush toy and the PARO are cost-effective psychosocial treatment options for agitation.

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS IN AUSTRALIA.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine submissions made to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and assess whether the predicted financial impact was associated with a recommendation. The second objective was to assess whether the financial and utilization estimates for listing the proposed medicine were reliable. METHODS: Data were extracted from public summary documents of major submissions considered by the PBAC from 2012 to 2014. Information collected included whether submissions were accepted, rejected, or deferred; estimated use; and financial impact. For those submissions that were recommended in 2012 and listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) by January 2014, a comparison was made between predicted and actual use and cost in 2014, based on PBS utilization. RESULTS: In 2012 to 2014, the PBAC considered 142 unique major submissions; of those, 65 were recommended for listing. A higher financial cost to the government was a statistically significant factor in predicting rejection (p = .004 for cost > AUD 30 million Australian dollars [20.7 million Euros] compared with cost-saving). Of the submissions that were recommended in 2012 and listed by 2014, the actual use was higher than predicted for 5/19 medications. The estimated cost was outside the predicted bracket of cost for 10/19 medications, with 8/19 medications having threefold underestimated expenditure, and 2/19 items having lower than predicted expenditure. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that the predicted financial impact of a medication to the PBS budget is associated with a PBAC recommendation and also highlights that predicted use may not reflect actual prescribing practices.

Telephone consultations for general practice: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The use of information technology, including internet- and telephone-based resources, is becoming an alternative and supporting method of providing many forms of services in a healthcare and health management setting. Telephone consultations provide a promising alternative and supporting service for face-to-face general practice care. The aim of this review is to utilize a systematic review to collate evidence on the use of telephone consultation as an alternative to face-to-face general practice visits. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed using the search terms for the intervention (telephone consultation) and the comparator (general practice). Systematic reviews and randomized control trials that examined telephone consultation compared to normal face-to-face consultation in general practice were included in this review. Papers were reviewed, assessed for quality (Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool) and data extracted and analysed. RESULTS: Two systematic reviews and one RCT were identified and included in the analysis. The RCT (N = 388) was of patients requesting same-day appointments from two general practices and patients were randomized to a same-day face-to-face appointment or a telephone call back consultation. There was a reduction in the time spent on consultations in the telephone group (1.5 min (0.6 to 2.4)) and patients in the telephone arm had 0.2 (0 to 0.3) more follow-up consultations than the face-to-face group. One systematic review focused on telephone consultation and triage on healthcare use, and included one RCT and one other observational study that examined telephone consultations. The other systematic review focused on patient access and included one RCT and four observational studies that examined telephone consultations. Both systematic reviews provided narrative interpretations of the evidence and concluded that telephone consultations provided an appropriate alternative to telephone consultations and reduced practice work load. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of high level evidence for telephone consultations in a GP setting; however, current evidence suggests that telephone consultations as an alternative to face-to-face general practice consultations offers an appropriate option in certain settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015025225.

What does it cost Medicare to diagnose and treat men with localized prostate cancer in the first year?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate costs on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) attributable to the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS: We used data from a cohort study of 1064 men with localized prostate cancer recruited between 2005 and 2007 by 24 urologists across 10 sites in Queensland, Australia (ProsCan). We estimated the MBS and PBS costs attributable to prostate cancer from the date of initial appointment to 12 months after diagnosis in 2013 Australian dollars using a comparison group without prostate cancer. We used generalized linear modeling to identify key determinants of higher treatment-related costs. RESULTS: From the date of initial appointment to 12 months postdiagnosis, the average MBS costs attributable to prostate cancer were $9,357 (SD $191) per patient. These MBS costs were most sensitive to having private health insurance and the type of primary treatment received. The PBS costs were higher in the control group than in the ProsCan group ($5,641 vs $1,924). CONCLUSIONS: The costs of treating and managing prostate cancer are high and these result in a substantial financial burden for the Australian MBS. Costs attributable to prostate cancer appear to vary widely based on initial treatment and these are likely to increase with the introduction of more expensive services and pharmaceuticals. There is a pressing need for better prognostic tools to distinguish between indolent and aggressive prostate tumors to reduce potential over treatment and help ease the burden of prostate cancer.

Impact of a person-centred community rehabilitation service on outcomes for individuals with a neurological condition.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of a person-centred, community rehabilitation service on outcomes for people with a neurological condition, in the first year of service. METHOD: A prospective, observational, pre-post study was conducted with 206 people who had a neurological condition and attended the rehabilitation service to restore function (e.g., Stroke); maximize recovery in an ongoing situation (e.g., Spina Bifida); or maximize function and independence while preparing for inevitable decline (e.g., Parkinson's Disease). Outcomes were measured via self-report questionnaires, prior to, and following three months of rehabilitation. The primary outcome was achievement of self-identified goals, measured by the Patient-Specific Functional scale. Secondary outcomes included the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scale, EQ-5D-5L European Quality of Life scale, and ICECAP-O - Index of Capability for Older Adults and health and medical resource use. RESULTS: Participants demonstrated significant goal achievement and a significant reduction in health and medical resource use. There were small positive changes in the Lawton IADL, EQ-5D-5L, and ICECAP-O however these changes were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In the first year of operation, the community rehabilitation service made a significant impact on outcomes for individuals with a neurological condition. Further research is required to identify appropriate measures of activities of daily living and quality of life that reflect person-centred rehabilitation outcomes for restoring function, maximizing function, or preparing for functional decline. Implications for Rehabilitation Self-identified goals are an important guide for achievement of meaningful outcomes for individuals with a neurological condition. Person-centred outcome measures are required to evaluate the benefits of a person-centred community rehabilitation service for individuals with a neurological condition.

Telemedicine for general practice: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The use of information technology in healthcare is fast becoming an alternative and supporting method of providing many forms of services in a healthcare and health management setting. Telephone technology is used readily to deliver services such as disease management, consultations and behaviour coaching. Telemedicine provides a promising alternative and supporting service for face-to-face general practice care. The aim of this review is to utilise a systematic review to collate evidence on the use of telemedicine as a lead in and an alternative to general practice visits. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be performed using the search terms for the intervention (telemedicine) and the comparator (general practice) to search the databases. The systematic review aims to identify randomised control trials; however, if none are identified, an updated search will be conducted to identify lower levels of evidence. Papers will be reviewed and assessed for quality and data extracted using two reviewers; if consensus is required, a third reviewer will be consulted. If applicable, a meta-analysis of relevant outcomes will be conducted. The protocol has been reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. DISCUSSION: The intervention and comparator have the potential to provide a vast range of healthcare services to a range of diseases and health conditions. There is likely to be difficulty in identifying relevant clinical outcome measures for the patient population. A range of outcome measures will therefore be collected in the data extraction phase. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015025225.