scholarly journals The impact of provider payment reforms and associated care delivery models on cost and quality in cancer care: A systematic literature review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. e0214382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mina Nejati ◽  
Moaven Razavi ◽  
Iraj Harirchi ◽  
Kazem Zendehdel ◽  
Parisa Nejati
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nurul Huda

ABSTRACTDuring this Coronavirus disease-19 (Covid -19) Pandemic, the challenges for appropriate and safe delivery nursing care is becoming main concerns since cancer patients are at high risk to be infected. Oncology nurse must reassure that the patients still get the optimal treatment while in other part they have to keep their patients safe. However, the change of provision of care in order to protect cancer patients must pay more attention. The aim of this paper was to review the literature on both the impact of Covid 19 to the provision of cancer care and nursing workforce. The implications of these findings for cancer patients will also be discussed. The electronic Science direct, Googlescholar and Pubmed databases were used to identify relevant articles. A combination of keywords: cancer, care, Corona virus 19, Covid-19 and Pandemic were used to identify relevant articles. Ten articles were included in the review. The broad issues were the impact of Covid 19 on nursing delivery care and the impact to the workforce. In terms of cancer care delivery, the Oncology teams are adopting new ways to minimise the risk of Covid 19 to the patients and their staff while at the similar times they have to reassure that the patients get the optimum care. Triage patients, adjusting treatment and limitation of visitor’s access to the patients is kind of changes that could do. A serious shortage and the availability of personal protective equipment are the major concern in nursing workforce changes during this pandemic. Planning or resuming cancer treatment and screening to mitigate the risk is the most important way to get the best outcomes. Hence, nurse has been pushed to adapt quickly and give their optimum nursing care to  patients as well as protect themselves from cross infectionABSTRAKSelama masa pandemi Coronavirus 19, tantangan terhadap pemberian asuhan keperawatan pada pasien kanker menjadi perhatian utama. Hal ini dikarenakan, pasien kanker adalah pasien dengan resiko tinggi tertular infeksi. Perawat oncology harus memastikan bahwa pasien yang mereka rawat tetap mendapatkan perawatan yang optimal walaupun disisi  lain mereka harus menjaga keamanan pasien. Oleh karena itu perubahan cara layanan dalam rangka melindungi pasien harus menjadi fokus tersendiri. Tujuan dari artikel ini adalah melakukan literature review tentang impact Covid 19 terhadap layanan pasien kanker dan lingkungan kerja di unit kerja keperawatan. Aplikasi dari temuan juga didiskusikan di artikel ini. Electronic data base seperti Science Direct, Googlescholar dan Pubmed digunakan untuk mencari artikel yang berhubungan. Kombinasi dari kata kuci : cancer, care, Corona virus 19, Covid-19 and Pandemic digunakan untuk telusur artikel. 10 artikel terseleksi. Isu utama yang didapatkan adalah efek dari Covid 19 terhadap cara pemberian asuhan keperawatan dan perubahan yang terjadi dalam lingkungan tenaga kerja. Dalam hal pemberian asuhan keperawatan diketahui bahwa team oncology mengadopsi cara baru untuk mencegah penyebaran Covid-19 kepada pasien dan staff dengan melakukan triage, menunda atau menyesuaikan treatment dan membatasi akses pengunjung ke pasien. Kekurangan tenaga kerja dan ketersediaan alat pelindung diri menjadi issue utama dalam ketenagakerjaan di area keperawatan selama masa pandemi. Merencanakan atau meresume kembali asuhan yang diberikan dan melakukan screening untuk mitigasi resiko infeksi merupakan salah satu cara yang paling naik untuk pelayanan yang terbaik. Oleh karena itu perawat harus bisa beradatasi secara cepat terhadap perubahan dan memberikan pelayanan keperawatan yang optimum dengan tidak melupakan perlindungan diri terhadap diri mereka sendiri dari infeksi silang.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1337.2-1337
Author(s):  
T. W. Swinnen ◽  
M. Willems ◽  
I. Jonkers ◽  
F. P. Luyten ◽  
J. Vanrenterghem ◽  
...  

Background:The personal and societal burden of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) urges the research community to identify factors that predict its onset and progression. A mechanistic understanding of disease is currently lacking but needed to develop targeted interventions. Traditionally, risk factors for KOA are termed ‘local’ to the joint or ‘systemic’ referring to whole-body systems. There are however clear indications in the scientific literature that contextual factors such as socioeconomic position merit further scientific scrutiny, in order to justify a more biopsychosocial view on risk factors in KOA.Objectives:The aims of this systematic literature review were to assess the inclusion of socioeconomic factors in KOA research and to identify the impact of socioeconomic factors on pain and function in KOA.Methods:Major bibliographic databases, namely Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane, were independently screened by two reviewers (plus one to resolve conflicts) to identify research articles dealing with socioeconomic factors in the KOA population without arthroplasty. Included studies had to quantify the relationship between socioeconomic factors and pain or function. Main exclusion criteria were: a qualitative design, subject age below 16 years and articles not written in English or Dutch. Methodological quality was assessed via the Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized (ROB-II) and non-randomized intervention studies (ROBIN-I) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies. Due to heterogeneity of studies with respect to outcomes assessed and analyses performed, no meta-analysis was performed.Results:Following de-duplication, 7639 articles were available for screening (120 conflicts resolved without a third reader). In 4112 articles, the KOA population was confirmed. 1906 (25%) were excluded because of knee arthroplasty and 1621 (21%) because of other issues related to the population definition. Socioeconomic factors could not be identified in 4058 (53%) papers and were adjusted for in 211 (3%) articles. In the remaining papers covering pain (n=110) and/or function (n=81), education (62%) and race (37%) were most frequently assessed as socioeconomic factors. A huge variety of mainly dichotomous or ordinal socioeconomic outcomes was found without further methodological justification nor sensitivity analysis to unravel the impact of selected categories. Although the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was the most popular instrument to assess pain and function, data pooling was not possible as socioeconomic factors estimates were part of multilevel models in most studies. Overall results showed that lower education and African American race were consistent predictors of pain and poor function, but those effects diminished or disappeared when psychological aspects (e.g. discrimination) or poverty estimates were taken into account. When function was assessed using self-reported outcomes, the impact of socioeconomic factors was more clear versus performance-based instruments. Quality of research was low to moderate and the moderating or mediating impact of socioeconomic factors on intervention effects in KOA is understudied.Conclusion:Research on contextual socioeconomic factors in KOA is insufficiently addressed and their assessment is highly variable methodologically. Following this systematic literature review, we can highlight the importance of implementing a standardised and feasible set of socioeconomic outcomes in KOA trials1, as well as the importance of public availability of research databases including these factors. Future research should prioritise the underlying mechanisms in the effect of especially education and race on pain and function and assess its impact on intervention effects to fuel novel (non-)pharmacological approaches in KOA.References:[1]Smith TO et al. The OMERACT-OARSI Core Domain Set for Measurement in Clinical Trials of Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis J Rheumatol 2019. 46:981–9.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 400
Author(s):  
Arnold G. Vulto ◽  
Jackie Vanderpuye-Orgle ◽  
Martin van der Graaff ◽  
Steven R. A. Simoens ◽  
Lorenzo Dagna ◽  
...  

Introduction: Biosimilars have the potential to enhance the sustainability of evolving health care systems. A sustainable biosimilars market requires all stakeholders to balance competition and supply chain security. However, there is significant variation in the policies for pricing, procurement, and use of biosimilars in the European Union. A modified Delphi process was conducted to achieve expert consensus on biosimilar market sustainability in Europe. Methods: The priorities of 11 stakeholders were explored in three stages: a brainstorming stage supported by a systematic literature review (SLR) and key materials identified by the participants; development and review of statements derived during brainstorming; and a facilitated roundtable discussion. Results: Participants argued that a sustainable biosimilar market must deliver tangible and transparent benefits to the health care system, while meeting the needs of all stakeholders. Key drivers of biosimilar market sustainability included: (i) competition is more effective than regulation; (ii) there should be incentives to ensure industry investment in biosimilar development and innovation; (iii) procurement processes must avoid monopolies and minimize market disruption; and (iv) principles for procurement should be defined by all stakeholders. However, findings from the SLR were limited, with significant gaps on the impact of different tender models on supply risks, savings, and sustainability. Conclusions: A sustainable biosimilar market means that all stakeholders benefit from appropriate and reliable access to biological therapies. Failure to care for biosimilar market sustainability may impoverish biosimilar development and offerings, eventually leading to increased cost for health care systems and patients, with fewer resources for innovation.


2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (02) ◽  
pp. 123-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL LORZ ◽  
SUSAN MUELLER ◽  
THIERRY VOLERY

The majority of studies that analyze the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes, intentions, and venture activities report positive influences. However, several scholars have recently cast doubts about research methods and the generalizability of entrepreneurship education impact studies. In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review of the methods used in entrepreneurship education impact studies. Our results uncover significant methodological deficiencies and question the overwhelmingly positive impact of entrepreneurship education. Based on this evidence, we propose a series of recommendations to improve the reliability and validity of entrepreneurship education impact studies and we outline promising topics which are currently under-researched.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18609-e18609
Author(s):  
Divya Ahuja Parikh ◽  
Meera Vimala Ragavan ◽  
Sandy Srinivas ◽  
Sarah Garrigues ◽  
Eben Lloyd Rosenthal ◽  
...  

e18609 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted rapid changes in cancer care delivery. We sought to examine oncology provider perspectives on clinical decisions and care delivery during the pandemic and to compare provider views early versus late in the pandemic. Methods: We invited oncology providers, including attendings, trainees and advanced practice providers, to complete a cross-sectional online survey using a variety of outreach methods including social media (Twitter), email contacts, word of mouth and provider list-serves. We surveyed providers at two time points during the pandemic when the number of COVID-19 cases was rising in the United States, early (March 2020) and late (January 2021). The survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-squared tests to evaluate differences in early versus late provider responses. Results: A total of 132 providers completed the survey and most were white (n = 73/132, 55%) and younger than 49 years (n = 88/132, 67%). Respondents were attendings in medical, surgical or radiation oncology (n = 61/132, 46%), advanced practice providers (n = 48/132, 36%) and oncology fellows (n = 16/132, 12%) who predominantly practiced in an academic medical center (n = 120/132, 91%). The majority of providers agreed patients with cancer are at higher risk than other patients to be affected by COVID-19 (n = 121/132, 92%). However, there was a significant difference in the proportion of early versus late providers who thought delays in cancer care were needed. Early in the pandemic, providers were more likely to recommend delays in curative surgery or radiation for early-stage cancer (p < 0.001), delays in adjuvant chemotherapy after curative surgery (p = 0.002), or delays in surveillance imaging for metastatic cancer (p < 0.001). The majority of providers early in the pandemic responded that “reducing risk of a complication from a COVID-19 infection to patients with cancer” was the primary reason for recommending delays in care (n = 52/76, 68%). Late in the pandemic, however, providers were more likely to agree that “any practice change would have a negative impact on patient outcomes” (p = 0.003). At both time points, the majority of providers agreed with the need for other care delivery changes, including screening patients for infectious symptoms (n = 128/132, 98%) and the use of telemedicine (n = 114/132, 86%) during the pandemic. Conclusions: We found significant differences in provider perspectives of delays in cancer care early versus late in the pandemic which reflects the swiftly evolving oncology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies are needed to determine the impact of changes in treatment and care delivery on outcomes for patients with cancer.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamrul Ahsan ◽  
Shams Rahman

PurposeThis study conducts a systematic literature review of e-tail product returns research. E-tail product returns are essentially acquisition of products that have been sold through purely online or brick-and-click channels and then returned by consumer to business.Design/methodology/approachUsing a systematic literature review protocol, we identified 75 peer-reviewed articles on e-tail product returns, conducted bibliometric analysis and content analysis of the articles and summarised our findings.FindingsThe findings reveal that the subject of e-tail returns is a new research area; academics have started to investigate several aspects of e-tail returns through different research methodologies and theoretical foundations. Further research is required in leading e-commerce countries and on key areas such as omni-channel returns management, customer satisfaction and service, the impact of resources such as people skills, the benefits of technology and IT systems in managing e-tail returns.Practical implicationsThe study offers a summative account of current e-tail knowledge areas, which can serve as a reference guide for e-tailers to develop strategies for more efficient and competitive product returns.Originality/valueThis study contributes theoretically by developing clusters of key themes or knowledge areas about e-tail returns. It also provides a conceptual framework for e-tail returns management, which can be used as a springboard for further empirical research.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 990-1011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith A. Meiklejohn ◽  
Alexander Mimery ◽  
Jennifer H. Martin ◽  
Ross Bailie ◽  
Gail Garvey ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document