RESUMO
Objetivo Evaluar el valor de la prestación de servicios de diálisis concertada frente a la hospitalaria para el tratamiento de la enfermedad renal crónica en España mediante la metodología de análisis de decisión multicriterio. Método Se utilizó el marco de evaluación EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making) para el cálculo del valor estimado de ambos modelos de prestación de la diálisis (concertada vs. hospitalaria) mediante un taller virtual en el que participaron diferentes perfiles: directivos y gestores, profesionales y responsables de unidades y representantes de pacientes y familiares. Las puntuaciones se combinaron mediante un modelo lineal aditivo, que combinó la ponderación del modelo con la puntuación individual de los criterios, y cada valor se transformó a una escala entre el 0 y 1. Resultados La estimación del valor para la diálisis concertada fue de 0,29 (DE: ±0,2) y de 0,39 (DE: ±0,2) para la diálisis hospitalaria. Todos los perfiles otorgaron un mayor valor a la hemodiálisis hospitalaria. El mayor valor para la diálisis hospitalaria fue de los pacientes (0,44); el menor valor medio fue de los directivos (0,36) y el rango para la diálisis concertada estuvo entre los pacientes (0,31) y los cargos intermedios (0,27). Conclusiones La hemodiálisis hospitalaria obtuvo un mayor valor que la diálisis concertada. En general, los panelistas afirmaron que resulta un ejercicio útil e interesante y que, en cierta medida, aporta seguridad en la toma de decisiones, ya que permite ordenar, racionalizar y considerar, de manera explícita y transparente, los diferentes criterios involucrados (AU)
Objective To evaluate the value of the provision of contracted versus hospital dialysis services for the treatment of chronic kidney disease in Spain using the multicriteria decision analysis methodology. Method The EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making) evaluation framework was used to calculate the estimated value of both dialysis delivery models (arranged vs. hospital) through a virtual workshop in which different profiles participated: directors and managers, professionals and heads of units and representatives of patients and relatives. The scores were combined using an additive lineal model, which combined the weight of the model with the individual score of the criteria, and each value was transformed to a scale between 0 and 1. Results The estimated value for arranged dialysis was 0.29 (DS: ±0.2) and 0.39 (DS: ±0.2) for hospital dialysis. All profiles gave a higher value to hospital hemodialysis compared to contracted hemodialysis. The highest value for hospital dialysis was for patients (0.44), with the lowest mean value for directors (0.36) and the range for arranged dialysis being between patients (0.31) and intermediate positions (0.27). Conclusions Hospital hemodialysis obtained a higher value than concerted dialysis. In general, the panelists affirmed that it is a useful and interesting exercise and that, to a certain extent, it provides security in decision-making, since it allows ordering, rationalizing and considering, in an explicit and transparent manner, the different criteria involved (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica , Tomada de Decisão Clínica , Diálise Renal/métodosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of the provision of contracted versus hospital dialysis services for the treatment of chronic kidney disease in Spain using the multicriteria decision analysis methodology. METHOD: The EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making) evaluation framework was used to calculate the estimated value of both dialysis delivery models (arranged vs. hospital) through a virtual workshop in which different profiles participated: directors and managers, professionals and heads of units and representatives of patients and relatives. The scores were combined using an additive lineal model, which combined the weight of the model with the individual score of the criteria, and each value was transformed to a scale between 0 and 1. RESULTS: The estimated value for arranged dialysis was 0.29 (DS: ±0.2) and 0.39 (DS: ±0.2) for hospital dialysis. All profiles gave a higher value to hospital hemodialysis compared to contracted hemodialysis. The highest value for hospital dialysis was for patients (0.44), with the lowest mean value for directors (0.36) and the range for arranged dialysis being between patients (0.31) and intermediate positions (0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital hemodialysis obtained a higher value than concerted dialysis. In general, the panelists affirmed that it is a useful and interesting exercise and that, to a certain extent, it provides security in decision-making, since it allows ordering, rationalizing and considering, in an explicit and transparent manner, the different criteria involved.
Assuntos
Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Insuficiência Renal Crônica , Humanos , Diálise Renal , EspanhaRESUMO
Introduction: Non-adherence to medications is one of the challenges health systems faces. Patients with poor adherence to treatment fail to benefit from effective medication, and this is associated with reductions in quality of life, poorer outcomes, increased hospitalisations, deaths, and, consequently, higher healthcare costs. Community pharmacies are shown to be key elements in improving adherence to prescribed medications, optimising patient outcomes and increasing the efficiency of care. Objectives: (1) assess the effectiveness of the New Medicine Service (NMS) intervention delivered by community pharmacists to improve adherence to treatment in patients who have been prescribed a new medicine for a specific chronic condition; and (2) to conduct an economic evaluation of this intervention. Methods: A pragmatic randomized clinical trial at community pharmacy-level (clusters) will be performed. Patients identified in the collaborating community pharmacy as starting treatment for the following conditions, will be invited to join the study: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus or on an anticoagulant/antiplatelet agent. The intervention is based on the pharmacist-patient communication, aiming to assess the patient's relationship with his/her new prescription, and identify potential issues, concerns and false beliefs or expectations. Ethics and dissemination: The study protocol has been reviewed and ethics approval obtained from the regional ethics committee. The results from this study will be actively disseminated through manuscript publications and conference presentations. (AU)
Introducción: La falta de adherencia a los medicamentos es uno de los desafíos a los que se enfrentan los sistemas de salud. Los pacientes con mala adherencia al tratamiento no se benefician de la eficacia de la medicación, lo que se asocia con peor calidad de vida, aumento en hospitalizaciones y muertes y, en consecuencia, mayores costes sanitarios. Se ha demostrado que las farmacias comunitarias son elementos clave para mejorar la adherencia a los medicamentos prescritos, optimizar los resultados en pacientes con enfermedades crónicas y aumentar la eficiencia de la atención sanitaria. Objetivos: (1) evaluar la efectividad de la intervención Asistencia a Nuevos Medicamentos (ANM) administrada por farmacéuticos comunitarios para mejorar la adherencia al tratamiento en pacientes a los que se les ha recetado un nuevo medicamento para una enfermedad crónica específica; y (2) realizar una evaluación económica de esta intervención. Métodos: Se realizará un ensayo clínico pragmático aleatorizado a nivel de farmacia comunitaria (clúster). Se invitará a unirse al estudio a los pacientes identificados en la farmacia comunitaria que inicien tratamiento para: enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica, hipertensión arterial, diabetes mellitus o en tratamiento con un anticoagulante/ antiagregante plaquetario. La intervención se basa en la comunicación farmacéutico-paciente, con el objetivo de evaluar la relación del paciente con su nuevo medicamento, e identificar posibles problemas, preocupaciones y falsas creencias-expectativas. Ética y difusión: Se ha obtenido el dictamen favorable del Comité de Ética de la Investigación Biomédica de Andalucía. Los resultados de este estudio se difundirán activamente a través de publicaciones y presentaciones en congresos. (AU)
