Cost and economic evidence for asset-based approaches to health improvement and their evaluation methods: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Asset-based approaches (ABAs) tackle health inequalities by empowering people in more disadvantaged communities, or targeted populations, to better utilise pre-existing local community-based resources. Using existing resources supports individuals to better manage their own health and its determinants, potentially at low cost. Targeting individuals disengaged with traditional service delivery methods offers further potential for meaningful cost-savings, since these people often require costly care. Thus, improving prevention, and management, of ill-health in these groups may have considerable cost implications. AIM: To systematically review the extent of current cost and economic evidence on ABAs, and methods used to develop it. METHODS: Search strategy terms encompassed: i) costing; ii) intervention detail; and iii) locality. Databases searched: Medline, CENTRAL and Wed of Science. Researchers screened 9,116 articles. Risk of bias was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. Narrative synthesis summarised findings. RESULTS: Twelve papers met inclusion criteria, representing eleven different ABAs. Within studies, methods varied widely, not only in design and comparators, but also in terms of included costs and outcome measures. Studies suggested economic efficiency, but lack of suitable comparators made more definitive conclusions difficult. CONCLUSION: Economic evidence around ABAs is limited. ABAs may be a promising way to engage underserved or minority groups, that may have lower net costs compared to alternative health and wellbeing improvement approaches. ABAs, an example of embedded services, suffer in the context of economic evaluation, which typically consider services as mutually exclusive alternatives. Economics of the surrounding services, mechanisms of information sharing, and collaboration underpin the success of assets and ABAs. The economic evidence, and evaluations in general, would benefit from increased context and detail to help ensure more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the economics of ABAs. Further evidence is needed to reach conclusions about cost-effectiveness of ABAs.

Economic Evaluation of Transperineal versus Transrectal Devices for Local Anaesthetic Prostate Biopsies.

BACKGROUND: Biopsy of the prostate for suspected cancer is usually performed transrectally under local anaesthesia in the outpatient clinic setting. As this involves piercing the bowel wall, the procedure is associated with a risk of infection. Recently, devices that facilitate transperineal biopsy approaches have been developed that avoid piercing the bowel and so should reduce the risk of infection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of transperineal versus transrectal ultrasound-guided local anaesthesia procedures for prostate biopsy from the perspective of the UK NHS and to estimate the value of further research in the area. METHODS: a) Decision tree and Markov model synthesising all relevant evidence estimating the life-time costs and QALYs accrued from each biopsy mode. b) Value of information analysis to predict the return from further research and thus guide future research efforts. RESULTS: Transperineal biopsy yields an ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained at a per-procedure device acquisition cost below £81, or £41 for cost-neutrality. These results are driven by differences in consumables cost, reduced cost of treating infections, and QALY gains associated with reduced infections. There is value in future research on the diagnostic accuracy of transperineal versus transrectal biopsies and the incidence of iatrogenic infection and sepsis; consideration should be given to enriching the patient population with men with intermediate-risk disease. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal biopsy devices may be cost effective compared with transrectal biopsy at per-procedure acquisition costs below £81 and cost-neutral if under £41. Future research is required to confirm or refute these findings, particularly randomised comparisons of the diagnostic accuracy and infection risks between the methods.