A Swedish cost-effectiveness analysis of community-based Chlamydia trachomatis PCR testing of postal urine specimens obtained at home

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 324-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel P. Novak ◽  
Lars Lindholm ◽  
Monica Jonsson ◽  
Roger B. Karlsson
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Lindholm ◽  
Anna Stenling ◽  
Margareta Norberg ◽  
Hans Stenlund ◽  
Lars Weinehall

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 1101-1108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laila F Ibrahim ◽  
Li Huang ◽  
Sandy M Hopper ◽  
Kim Dalziel ◽  
Franz E Babl ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. e0235572
Author(s):  
Lulua Bahrainwala ◽  
Astrid M. Knoblauch ◽  
Andry Andriamiadanarivo ◽  
Mohamed Mustafa Diab ◽  
Jesse McKinney ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farzaneh Miri ◽  
Nader Jahanmehr ◽  
Reza Goudarzi

Abstract Aims: This study evaluated and compared the cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions in patients with stroke in the three alternatives of hospitals, units and homes due to the fact that one of the stroke management challenges is how to provide a rehabilitation service to these patients in Iran. Methods: This is a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of a health system. A Markov model with a 20-year time horizon in 3-month cycles was used to analyze the costs and outcomes. Cost data were collected from the 210 patients undergoing rehabilitation in the hospital, home and unit. Utility data were extracted from previously published literature with the same setting. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted by calculating ICER using TreeAge Software. Basic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted at the end. Results: The average cost of rehabilitation in home strategy ($ 2306) was less than hospital ($2955) and unit ($3485) strategies. Furthermore, the utility of home strategy (26.03) was 8 units higher than hospital utility (17.99) and 19 units higher than utility of the stroke unit (7.03). The Acer values of hospital, stroke unit and home groups were $11424, $33159 and $7233 per utility, respectively. According to the results, the home-based rehabilitation strategy is cost effective compared to hospital and unit rehabilitation strategy. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis also showed that the ICER of home strategy is always cost-effective than the other strategies. Limitation: : limitation of the present study was the reliance on utility values of other studies. Conclusion: Rehabilitation at home is the most cost-effective strategy for stroke patients. Given the high rates of this disease in Iran and the high cost of it, it is suggested that policy makers lay the groundwork for providing these services at home.


2016 ◽  
Vol 110 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 292-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. I. J. G. Rours ◽  
Tamar Anne Smith-Norowitz ◽  
Jared Ditkowsky ◽  
Margaret R. Hammerschlag ◽  
R. P. Verkooyen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document