Evidence for the Cost-Effectiveness of Return-to-Work Interventions for Mental Illness Related Sickness Absences: A Systematic Literature Review

Author(s):  
Carolyn S. Dewa ◽  
Jeffrey S. Hoch ◽  
Desmond Loong ◽  
Lucy Trojanowski ◽  
Sarah Bonato
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carme Pinyol ◽  
Jose Mª Cepeda ◽  
Inmaculada Roldan ◽  
Vanesa Roldan ◽  
Silvia Jimenez ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Jarl ◽  
Ulf-G. Gerdtham

The purpose of this study is threefold; 1) to establish the current level of knowledge regarding cost-effectiveness of organ transplantation, 2) to identify knowledge gaps, and 3) to suggest a framework for future studies. A systematic literature review of economic evaluations of transplantations of solid organs was conducted in October 2010. Economic evaluations published since 2000 and reviews published since 1987 for kidney, liver, lung, heart, pancreas, and small bowel transplantations were collected. The studies were analysed regarding results and study characteristics. The review demonstrates a lack of economic evaluations for all included organ transplantations. The cost-effectiveness of kidney transplantation, and to some extent liver transplantation, compared to a non-transplant alternative appears to be established. However, cost-effectiveness for transplantation of lung, heart, pancreas, and small bowel can neither be established nor rejected based on earlier studies. Many of the included studies were limited in a number of ways; e.g. using short follow-up period, failing to account for sample selection in treatment groups, comparing to unrealistic alternatives, lacking important cost categories, and using a limiting perspective. Recommendation for future studies are, besides accounting for the above, to conduct sub-group analyses as patient and disease characteristics, among other things, has been shown to affect the cost-effectiveness of organ transplantation.  Link to Appendix


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-219
Author(s):  
Samron Brhane Gebregergish ◽  
Mahmoud Hashim ◽  
Bart Heeg ◽  
Thomas Wilke ◽  
Marco Rauland ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aparna Ananthakrishnan ◽  
Chris Painter ◽  
Yot Teerawattananon

Abstract Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is accelerated by the widespread and often indiscriminate use of antimicrobials in humans, animals, and the environment. In 2015, the World Health Organization recognised AMR as one of the top ten global health threats, due to its potential to neutralise humanity’s advancements in western medicine by enabling the emergence of new strains of existing pathogens, many of which have no available treatments. Over the past decade, several countries, including those in low- and middle-income contexts, have started implementing interventions to tackle AMR. However, economic evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions remains weak. To address this evidence gap, we will conduct a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive summary on the value for money of different AMR interventions. Methods We aim to conduct a systematic literature review of all available economic evaluations on interventions addressing AMR and will provide a narrative synthesis of our findings. Systematic searches for relevant studies will be performed across all suitable databases as well as in grey literature sources such as unpublished studies, reports, and other relevant documents. All economic evaluation studies will be included as long as they report an economic outcome and have stated that the analysed intervention will reduce antimicrobial resistance or antimicrobial use in the abstract. Those studies reporting clinical endpoints alone will be excluded. Selection for final inclusion and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. Discussion The review will be one of the first of its kind, and the most recent, to systematically review literature on the cost-effectiveness of AMR interventions, an important evidence gap in the economics of AMR. The findings will enable policy and decision-makers, particularly in resource-constrained settings, to better use available resources when selecting interventions to address AMR burdens, Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020190310


2018 ◽  
Vol 126 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Barbieri ◽  
G Richardson ◽  
S Paisley

Abstract Introduction The cost of treatment and follow-up of cancer patients in the UK is substantial. In a budget-constrained system such as the NHS, it is necessary to consider the cost-effectiveness of the range of management strategies at different points on cancer patients’ care pathways to ensure that they provide adequate value for money. Sources of data We conducted a systematic literature review to explore the cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies of patients previously treated for cancer with the aim of informing UK policy. All papers that were considered to be economic evaluations in the subject areas described above were extracted. Areas of agreement The existing literature suggests that intensive follow-up of patients with colorectal disease is likely to be cost-effective, but the opposite holds for breast cancer. Areas of controversy Interventions and strategies for follow-up in cancer patients were variable across type of cancer and setting. Drawing general conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions/strategies is difficult. Growing points The search identified 2036 references but applying inclusion/exclusion criteria a total of 44 articles were included in the analysis. Breast cancer was the most common (n = 11) cancer type followed by colorectal (n = 10) cancer. In general, there were relatively few studies of cost-effectiveness of follow-up that could influence UK guidance. Where there was evidence, in the most part, NICE guidance broadly reflected this evidence. Areas timely to develop research In terms of future research around the timing, frequency and composition of follow-ups, this is dependent on the type of cancer being considered. Nevertheless, across most cancers, the possibility of remote follow-up (or testing) by health professionals other than hospital consultants in other settings appears to warrant further work.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document