The costs of functional gastrointestinal disorders and related signs and symptoms in infants: a systematic literature review and cost calculation for England

ObjectivesTo estimate the cost of functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) and related signs and symptoms in infants to the third party payer and to parents.Study designTo estimate the cost of illness (COI) of infant FGIDs, a two-stage process was applied: a systematic literature review and a COI calculation. As no pertinent papers were found in the systematic literature review, a ‘de novo’ analysis was performed. For the latter, the potential costs for the third party payer (the National Health Service (NHS) in England) and for parents/carers for the treatment of FGIDs in infants were calculated, by using publicly available data. In constructing the calculation, estimates and assumptions (where necessary) were chosen to provide a lower bound (minimum) of the potential overall cost. In doing so, the interpretation of the calculation is that the true COI can be no lower than that estimated.ResultsOur calculation estimated that the total costs of treating FGIDs in infants in England were at least £72.3 million per year in 2014/2015 of which £49.1 million was NHS expenditure on prescriptions, community care and hospital treatment. Parents incurred £23.2 million in costs through purchase of over the counter remedies.ConclusionsThe total cost presented here is likely to be a significant underestimate as only lower bound estimates were used where applicable, and for example, costs of alternative therapies, inpatient treatments or diagnostic tests, and time off work by parents could not be adequately estimated and were omitted from the calculation. The number and kind of prescribed products and products sold over the counter to treat FGIDs suggest that there are gaps between treatment guidelines, which emphasise parental reassurance and nutritional advice, and their implementation.

Download Full-text

EFFECTS OF COVID-19 INFECTION DURING PREGNANCY AND NEONATAL PROGNOSIS: WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?

10.1101/2020.04.17.20069435 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Álvaro Francisco Lopes Sousa ◽

Herica Emilia Félix de Carvalho ◽

Layze Braz de Oliveira ◽

Guilherme Schneider ◽

Emerson Lucas Silva Camargo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Literature Review ◽

Pregnant Women ◽

Vertical Transmission ◽

Systematic Literature Review ◽

Maternal Death ◽

Public Policies ◽

Signs And Symptoms ◽

Premature Labor ◽

Third Trimester ◽

The Third

AbstractBackgroundLittle is known about how COVID-19 infection affects pregnant women, as well as about the possibility of vertical transmission or that of premature labor. Thus, this study’s objective was to identify existing evidence to directive public policies.MethodSystematic literature review assessing papers published in the most comprehensive databases in the field of health.Results12 papers were eligible. A total of 119 pregnant women aged between 22 and 42 years old and between the 12th and 41st weeks were analyzed; 90 children were born. Most pregnant women acquired the infection in the third trimester of pregnancy, 97.4% were diagnosed before hospitalization based on signs and symptoms. There was no maternal death and no vertical transmission was confirmed.Conclusionspregnant women must be cautious and vigilant because their exposure to the virus, even if at the end of a pregnancy, has important repercussions, especially for the type of labor.

Download Full-text

The Third Mission Among Nordic Universities: A Systematic Literature Review

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research ◽

10.1080/00313831.2020.1816577 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-23

Author(s):

Verena Schnurbus ◽

Ingi Runar Edvardsson

Keyword(s):

Literature Review ◽

Systematic Literature Review ◽

Third Mission ◽

The Third

Download Full-text

Behnke_Armbruster_Strobel - The needs of the many - Influence of personality on third-party judgments of utilitarian rule violations

10.31234/osf.io/b3hcv ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Alexander Behnke ◽

Diana Armbruster ◽

Anja Strobel

Keyword(s):

Emotional Responses ◽

Minority Rights ◽

Third Party ◽

Online Study ◽

The Third ◽

Moral Decisions ◽

The Many ◽

Personality Features ◽

The Cost ◽

Sense Of Justice

Safeguarding the rights of minorities is crucial for just societies. However, there are conceivable situations were minority rights might seriously impede the rights of the majority. Favoring the minority in such cases constitutes a violation of utilitarian principles. To investigate the emotional, cognitive, and punitive responses of observers of such utilitarian rule transgressions, we conducted an online study with 1004 participants. Two moral scenarios (vaccine policy and epidemic) were rephrased in the third-party perspective. In both scenarios the protagonist opted against the utilitarian option which resulted in more fatalities in total, but avoided harm to a minority. The scenarios varied in whether the minority would have been harmed accidentally or deliberate. The majority of participants chose not to punish the scenarios’ protagonists at all. However, 30.5% judged that protecting the minority over the interests of the majority when only accidental harm would have occurred (vaccine policy) was worthy of punishment. In comparison, only 11.5% opted to punish a protagonist whose decision avoided deliberate harm to a minority at the cost of the majority (epidemic). Emotional responses and appropriateness ratings paralleled these results. Furthermore, complex personality × situation interactions revealed the influence of personality features, i.e., psychopathy, empathy, altruism, authoritarianism, need for cognition and faith in intuition, on participants’ responses. The results further underscore the need to consider the interaction of situational features and inter-individual differences in moral decisions and sense of justice.

Download Full-text

10. Alternative Dispute Resolution

A Practical Approach to Civil Procedure ◽

10.1093/he/9780198858386.003.0010 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 111-117

Author(s):

Stuart Sime

Keyword(s):

Dispute Resolution ◽

Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽

Third Party ◽

The Third ◽

Early Settlement ◽

Court Involvement ◽

The Third Party ◽

The Cost

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), particularly mediation, plays a key role in reducing the costs of civil disputes by fomenting the early settlement of cases. This chapter discusses ADR processes; advantages or disadvantages of ADR and litigation; the cost of ADR; reference to ADR; and court involvement in ADR. Adjudicative ADR results in the third party neutral deciding the dispute or difference between the parties. Non-adjudicative ADR processes involve moving the parties towards reaching a compromise agreement between themselves. Rules of court require parties to consider using ADR. Sanctions may be imposed on parties who act unreasonably.

Download Full-text