scholarly journals Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients

2016 ◽  
Vol Volume 10 ◽  
pp. 2491-2500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inger M. Janssen ◽  
Fueloep Scheibler ◽  
Ansgar Gerhardus
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Reference Group ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Self Help Group

scholarly journals Behavioural activation versus guided self-help for depression in adults with learning disabilities: the BeatIt RCT

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (53) ◽  
pp. 1-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Jahoda ◽  
Richard Hastings ◽  
Chris Hatton ◽  
Sally-Ann Cooper ◽  
Nicola McMeekin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Behavioural Activation ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Adults With Learning Disabilities ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Background Depression is the most prevalent mental health problem among people with learning disabilities. Objective The trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural activation for depression experienced by people with mild to moderate learning disabilities. The intervention was compared with a guided self-help intervention. Design A multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, with follow-up at 4, 8 and 12 months post randomisation. There was a nested qualitative study. Setting Participants were recruited from community learning disability teams and services and from Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services in Scotland, England and Wales. Participants Participants were aged ≥ 18 years, with clinically significant depression, assessed using the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychiatric Disorders for use with Adults with Learning Disabilities. Participants had to be able to give informed consent and a supporter could accompany them to therapy. Interventions BeatIt was a manualised behavioural activation intervention, adapted for people with learning disabilities and depression. StepUp was an adapted guided self-help intervention. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD). Secondary outcomes included carer ratings of depressive symptoms and aggressiveness, self-reporting of anxiety symptoms, social support, activity and adaptive behaviour, relationships, quality of life (QoL) and life events, and resource and medication use. Results There were 161 participants randomised (BeatIt, n = 84; StepUp, n = 77). Participant retention was strong, with 141 completing the trial. Most completed therapy (BeatIt: 86%; StepUp: 82%). At baseline, 63% of BeatIt participants and 66% of StepUp participants were prescribed antidepressants. There was no statistically significant difference in GDS-LD scores between the StepUp (12.94 points) and BeatIt (11.91 points) groups at the 12-month primary outcome point. However, both groups improved during the trial. Other psychological and QoL outcomes followed a similar pattern. There were no treatment group differences, but there was improvement in both groups. There was no economic evidence suggesting that BeatIt may be more cost-effective than StepUp. However, treatment costs for both groups were approximately only 4–6.5% of the total support costs. Results of the qualitative research with participants, supporters and therapists were in concert with the quantitative findings. Both treatments were perceived as active interventions and were valued in terms of their structure, content and perceived impact. Limitations A significant limitation was the absence of a treatment-as-usual (TAU) comparison. Conclusions Primary and secondary outcomes, economic data and qualitative results all clearly demonstrate that there was no evidence for BeatIt being more effective than StepUp. Future work Comparisons against TAU are required to determine whether or not these interventions had any effect. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09753005. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Versorgungsforschung in der Klinischen Neuropsychologie – eine Standortbestimmung

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 253-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Heel ◽  
Sonja Fischer ◽  
Stefan Fischer ◽  
Tobias Grässer ◽  
Ellen Hämmerling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Empirische Forschung

Zunächst führt dieser Artikel in die wesentlichen Begrifflichkeiten und Zielstellungen der Versorgungsforschung ein. Er befasst sich dann mit der Frage, wie die einzelnen Teildisziplinen der Versorgungsforschung, (1) die Bedarfsforschung, (2) die Inanspruchnahmeforschung, (3) die Organisationsforschung, (4) das Health Technology Assessment, (5) die Versorgungsökonomie, (6) die Qualitätsforschung und zuletzt (7) die Versorgungsepidemiologie konzeptionell zu fassen sind, und wie sie für neuropsychologische Anliegen ausformuliert werden müssen. In diesem Zusammenhang werden die in den einzelnen Bereichen jeweils vorliegenden versorgungsrelevanten Studienergebnisse referiert. Soweit es zulässig ist, werden Bedarfe für die Versorgungsforschung und Versorgungspraxis in der Neurorehabilitation daraus abgeleitet und Anregungen für die weitere empirische Forschung formuliert. Der Artikel bezieht sich – entsprechend seines Anliegens – ausschließlich auf Studien, die sich mit der Situation der deutschen Neurorehabilitation befassen.

Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Royle ◽  
Sandy Oliver
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Organizational Development ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Consumer Involvement ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Staff Time ◽  
Job Descriptions ◽  
Assessment Program ◽  
Research Resources

Objectives: This study aims to describe a cycle of development leading to sustainable methods for involving consumers in the management of a program commissioning health technology assessment.Methods: Staff time was dedicated to developing procedures for recruiting and briefing consumers to participate in prioritizing, commissioning, and reporting research. Resources and support were developed in light of early feedback from consumers and those working with them. These were piloted and amended before being used routinely.Results: Over 4 years, procedures and resources have been developed to support six consumers attending seven to eight prioritization meetings a year; thirty to forty-five consumers each year commenting on research need for particular topics; thirty consumers a year commenting on research proposals, and twenty a year commenting on research reports. The procedures include clear job descriptions, induction and development days, clear briefing materials, payment for substantial tasks, and regularly seeking feedback to improve procedures.Conclusions: Explicit, inclusive, and reproducible methods for supporting consumer involvement that satisfy National Health Service policy recommendations for involving consumers in research require dedicated staff time to support a cycle of organizational development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document