scholarly journals A programme of studies including assessment of diagnostic accuracy of school hearing screening tests and a cost-effectiveness model of school entry hearing screening programmes

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (36) ◽  
pp. 1-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Fortnum ◽  
Obioha C Ukoumunne ◽  
Chris Hyde ◽  
Rod S Taylor ◽  
Mara Ozolins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
School Entry ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundIdentification of permanent hearing impairment at the earliest possible age is crucial to maximise the development of speech and language. Universal newborn hearing screening identifies the majority of the 1 in 1000 children born with a hearing impairment, but later onset can occur at any time and there is no optimum time for further screening. A universal but non-standardised school entry screening (SES) programme is in place in many parts of the UK but its value is questioned.ObjectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of hearing screening tests and the cost-effectiveness of the SES programme in the UK.DesignSystematic review, case–control diagnostic accuracy study, comparison of routinely collected data for services with and without a SES programme, parental questionnaires, observation of practical implementation and cost-effectiveness modelling.SettingSecond- and third-tier audiology services; community.ParticipantsChildren aged 4–6 years and their parents.Main outcome measuresDiagnostic accuracy of two hearing screening devices, referral rate and source, yield, age at referral and cost per quality-adjusted life-year.ResultsThe review of diagnostic accuracy studies concluded that research to date demonstrates marked variability in the design, methodological quality and results. The pure-tone screen (PTS) (Amplivox, Eynsham, UK) and HearCheck (HC) screener (Siemens, Frimley, UK) devices had high sensitivity (PTS ≥ 89%, HC ≥ 83%) and specificity (PTS ≥ 78%, HC ≥ 83%) for identifying hearing impairment. The rate of referral for hearing problems was 36% lower with SES (Nottingham) relative to no SES (Cambridge) [rate ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.69;p < 0.001]. The yield of confirmed cases did not differ between areas with and without SES (rate ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06;p = 0.12). The mean age of referral did not differ between areas with and without SES for all referrals but children with confirmed hearing impairment were older at referral in the site with SES (mean age difference 0.47 years, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.70 years;p < 0.001). Parental responses revealed that the consequences to the family of the referral process are minor. A SES programme is unlikely to be cost-effective and, using base-case assumptions, is dominated by a no screening strategy. A SES programme could be cost-effective if there are fewer referrals associated with SES programmes or if referrals occur more quickly with SES programmes.ConclusionsA SES programme using the PTS or HC screener is unlikely to be effective in increasing the identified number of cases with hearing impairment and lowering the average age at identification and is therefore unlikely to represent good value for money. This finding is, however, critically dependent on the results of the observational study comparing Nottingham and Cambridge, which has limitations. The following are suggested: systematic reviews of the accuracy of devices used to measure hearing at school entry; characterisation and measurement of the cost-effectiveness of different approaches to the ad-hoc referral system; examination of programme specificity as opposed to test specificity; further observational comparative studies of different programmes; and opportunistic trials of withdrawal of SES programmes.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN61668996.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Screening for Melanoma by Primary Health Care Physicians: A Cost—Effectiveness Analysis

1996 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afaf Girgis ◽  
Philip Clarke ◽  
Robert C Burton ◽  
Rob W Sanson—Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Assessment ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Family Practitioners ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Primary Health Care Physicians ◽  
Melanoma Screening

Background and design— Australia has the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, and the incidence is estimated to be doubling every 10 years. Despite advances in the early detection and treatment of melanoma about 800 people still die nationally of the disease each year. A possible strategy for further reducing the mortality from melanoma is an organised programme of population screening for unsuspected lesions in asymptomatic people. Arguments against introducing melanoma screening have been based on cost and the lack of reliable data on the efficacy of any screening tests. To date, however, there has been no systematic economic assessment of the cost effectiveness of melanoma screening. The purpose of this research was to determine whether screening may be potentially cost effective and, therefore, warrants further investigation. A computer was used to simulate the effects of a hypothetical melanoma screening programme that was in operation for 20 years, using cohorts of Australians aged 50 at the start of the programme. Based on this simulation, cost—effectiveness estimates of melanoma screening were calculated. Results— Under the standard assumptions used in the model, and setting the sensitivity of the screening test (visual inspection of the skin) at 60%, cost effectiveness ranged from Aust$6853 per life year saved for men if screening was undertaken five yearly to $12137 if screening was two yearly. For women, it ranged from $11 102 for five yearly screening to $20 877 for two yearly screening. Conclusion— The analysis suggests that a melanoma screening programme could be cost effective, particularly if five yearly screening is implemented by family practitioners for men over the age of 50.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of a domestic violence and abuse training and support programme in primary care in the real world: updated modelling based on an MRC phase IV observational pragmatic implementation study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e021256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Estela Capelas Barbosa ◽  
Talitha Irene Verhoef ◽  
Steve Morris ◽  
Francesca Solmi ◽  
Medina Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Uncertainty Interval ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Training And Support ◽  
Domestic Violence And Abuse ◽  
Service Perspective ◽  
Health Service Perspective

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) programme using up-to-date real-world information on costs and effectiveness from routine clinical practice. A Markov model was constructed to estimate mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of IRIS versus usual care per woman registered at a general practice from a societal and health service perspective with a 10-year time horizon.Design and settingCost–utility analysis in UK general practices, including data from six sites which have been running IRIS for at least 2 years across England.ParticipantsBased on the Markov model, which uses health states to represent possible outcomes of the intervention, we stipulated a hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women aged 16 years or older.InterventionsThe IRIS trial was a randomised controlled trial that tested the effectiveness of a primary care training and support intervention to improve the response to women experiencing domestic violence and abuse, and found it to be cost-effective. As a result, the IRIS programme has been implemented across the UK, generating data on costs and effectiveness outside a trial context.ResultsThe IRIS programme saved £14 per woman aged 16 years or older registered in general practice (95% uncertainty interval −£151 to £37) and produced QALY gains of 0.001 per woman (95% uncertainty interval −0.005 to 0.006). The incremental net monetary benefit was positive both from a societal and National Health Service perspective (£42 and £22, respectively) and the IRIS programme was cost-effective in 61% of simulations using real-life data when the cost-effectiveness threshold was £20 000 per QALY gained as advised by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.ConclusionThe IRIS programme is likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving from a societal perspective in the UK and cost-effective from a health service perspective, although there is considerable uncertainty surrounding these results, reflected in the large uncertainty intervals.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine in treatment of chronic pain using competing EQ-5D weights

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Norrlid ◽  
Peter Dahm ◽  
Gunnel Ragnarson Tennvall
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Treatment Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
Annual Treatment ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Annual Treatment Cost

AbstractBackground and aimsChronic pain is a life altering condition and common among elderly persons. The 7-day buprenorphine patch could be a suitable treatment for managing chronic pain of moderate severity in elderly patients in Sweden.The objective of this analysis was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the 7-day buprenorphine patch, versus no treatment, in patients >50 years old who suffer from moderate pain in a health economic perspective. An additional aim was to evaluate how the cost-effectiveness is affected by the choice of EQ-5D weights.MethodsThe annual treatment cost and the potential gains in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of buprenorphine, compared to no treatment, were evaluated. Original EQ-5D data were collected from four clinical reference studies at baseline and at the final visit. Treatment effects on HRQoL were then assessed using both UK and Swedish EQ-5D weights. Annual treatment costs were calculated based on costs of physician visits and pharmaceuticals.The optimal treatment dose was 10-15 μg/h and the analysis was hence performed on both a 10- and a 15 μg/h buprenorphine patch.ResultsThe analysis of buprenorphine treatment resulted in improved HRQoL in all reference studies, irrespective of choice of EQ-5D weight set. The change in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) varied with a gain of 0.042-0.118 using the UK weights and 0.020-0.051 with the Swedish weights. The average annual treatment cost was SEK14454 for the 10μg/h patch and SEK17 017 for the 15 μg/h patch, while cost for the no-treatment alternative was SEK 9 960. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) with the UK weights were SEK 40000-SEK 170000 and SEK 90000-SEK 350000 when applying the Swedish weights. The corresponding ICER-span in the sensitivity analysis was SEK 15 000-SEK 400 000 when applying the UK weights and SEK 30 000-SEK 840 000 with the Swedish weights (SEK 100 is about €11).ConclusionsThe results imply that the 7-day buprenorphine patch may be a cost-effective treatment of moderate chronic pain in patients over 50 years of age. The UK and the Swedish EQ-5D weights generated vastly different HRQoL estimates but buprenorphine remains cost-effective regardless choice of weight set.

scholarly journals A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Newborn Screening for Severe Combined Immunodeficiency in the UK

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Bessey ◽  
James Chilcott ◽  
Joanna Leaviss ◽  
Carmen de la Cruz ◽  
Ruth Wong
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Severe Combined Immunodeficiency ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Combined Immunodeficiency ◽  
Tree Model ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) can be detected through newborn bloodspot screening. In the UK, the National Screening Committee (NSC) requires screening programmes to be cost-effective at standard UK thresholds. To assess the cost-effectiveness of SCID screening for the NSC, a decision-tree model with lifetable estimates of outcomes was built. Model structure and parameterisation were informed by systematic review and expert clinical judgment. A public service perspective was used and lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.5%. Probabilistic, one-way sensitivity analyses and an exploratory disbenefit analysis for the identification of non-SCID patients were conducted. Screening for SCID was estimated to result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £18,222 with a reduction in SCID mortality from 8.1 (5–12) to 1.7 (0.6–4.0) cases per year of screening. Results were sensitive to a number of parameters, including the cost of the screening test, the incidence of SCID and the disbenefit to the healthy at birth and false-positive cases. Screening for SCID is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY, key uncertainties relate to the impact on false positives and the impact on the identification of children with non-SCID T Cell lymphopenia.

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase for first-line treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a UK-based cost-utility analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xingdi Hu ◽  
Kingsley P. Wildman ◽  
Subham Basu ◽  
Peggy L. Lin ◽  
Clare Rowntree ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
First Line ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Search Trial ◽  
Erwinia Asparaginase ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background L-asparaginase is a key component of treatment for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) in the UK. Commonly used forms of asparaginase are native E. coli-derived asparaginase (native asparaginase) and pegaspargase in first-line combination therapy, and native Erwinia chrysanthemi-derived asparaginase (Erwinia asparaginase) as second-line treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase in first-line combination therapy for patients with newly diagnosed ALL. A combined decision tree and health-state transition Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed to assess the relative costs and health outcomes of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase in the UK setting. Results In base case analyses, first-line pegaspargase (followed by Erwinia asparaginase in cases of hypersensitivity) dominated first-line native asparaginase followed by Erwinia asparaginase; i.e. resulted in lower costs and more quality-adjusted life year gain. The favourable hypersensitivity rates and administration profile of pegaspargase led to lifetime cost savings of £4741 versus native asparaginase. Pegaspargase remained cost-effective versus all treatment strategies in all scenario analyses, including use of the 2500 IU/m2 dose, recommended for patients ≤21 years of age. Conclusions Pegaspargase, as part of multi-drug chemotherapy, is a cost-effective option for the treatment of newly diagnosed ALL. Based on this study, The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisal Committee concluded that it could recommend pegaspargase as a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources in England & Wales for treating ALL in children, young people and adults with untreated, newly diagnosed disease. Trial registration UKALL 2011, EudraCT number 2010-020924-22; UKALL 2003, EudraCT number 2007-004013-34; UKALL14, EudraCT number 2009-012717-22.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of an insertable cardiac monitor in a high-risk population in the UK

Open Heart ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e001037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia I Rinciog ◽  
Laura M Sawyer ◽  
Alexander Diamantopoulos ◽  
Mitchell S V Elkind ◽  
Matthew Reynolds ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Risk Population ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) compared with standard of care (SoC) for detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients at high risk of stroke (CHADS2 >2), using a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.MethodsUsing patient characteristics and clinical data from the REVEAL AF trial, a Markov model assessed the cost-effectiveness of detecting AF with an ICM compared with SoC. Costs and benefits were extrapolated across modelled patient lifetime. Ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes, intracranial and extracranial haemorrhages and minor bleeds were modelled. Diagnostic and device costs were included, plus costs of treating stroke and bleeding events and costs of oral anticoagulants (OACs). Costs and health outcomes, measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), were discounted at 3.5% per annum. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were undertaken.ResultsThe total per-patient cost for ICM was £13 360 versus £11 936 for SoC (namely, annual 24 hours Holter monitoring). ICMs generated a total of 6.50 QALYs versus 6.30 for SoC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £7140/QALY gained, below the £20 000/QALY acceptability threshold. ICMs were cost-effective in 77.4% of PSA simulations. The number of ICMs needed to prevent one stroke was 21 and to cause a major bleed was 37. ICERs were sensitive to assumed proportions of patients initiating or discontinuing OAC after AF diagnosis, type of OAC used and how intense the traditional monitoring was assumed to be under SoC.ConclusionsThe use of ICMs to identify AF in a high-risk population is cost-effective for the UK NHS.

OP60 Optimising Risk-Based Screening: The Case Of Diabetic Eye Disease

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 21-21
Author(s):  
Christopher Sampson ◽  
Marilyn James ◽  
David Whynes ◽  
Antonio Eleuteri ◽  
Simon Harding
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Eye Disease ◽  
Risk Calculation ◽  
Diabetic Eye Disease ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Level Of Risk

Introduction:There is growing evidence that many people attending annual screening for diabetic retinopathy in the United Kingdom (UK) are at low risk of developing the disease. This has led to new policy statements. However, the basis on which to establish a risk-based individualized variable-recall screening program has not yet been determined. We present a methodology for using information on an individual's risk factors to improve the allocation of resources within a screening program.Methods:We developed a patient-level state-transition model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening for diabetic retinopathy in the UK. The model incorporated a recently developed risk calculation engine that predicts an individual's risk of disease onset, and allocated individuals to alternative screening recall periods according to this level of risk. Using the findings, we demonstrate a means of estimating: (i) a threshold level of risk, above which individuals should be invited to screening, and (ii) the optimum screening recall period for an individual, based on the expected cost-effectiveness of screening and treatment.Results:The cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that standardized screening (current practice) is the least cost-effective program. Individualized screening can improve outcomes at a reduced cost. We found it feasible – though computationally expensive – to incorporate a risk calculation engine into a decision model in Microsoft Excel. In an optimized screening program, the majority or patients would be invited to attend screening at least two years after a negative screening result.Conclusions:Individualized risk-based screening is likely to be cost-effective in the context of diabetic eye disease in the UK. It is expected that risk calculation engines will be developed in other disease areas in the future, and used to allocate screening and treatment at the individual level. It is important that researchers develop robust methods for combining risk calculation engines into decision analytic models and health technology assessment more broadly.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of tranexamic acid for the treatment of traumatic brain injury, based on the results of the CRASH-3 randomised trial: a decision modelling approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. e002716
Author(s):  
Jack Williams ◽  
Ian Roberts ◽  
Haleema Shakur-Still ◽  
Fiona E Lecky ◽  
Rizwana Chaudhri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Tranexamic Acid ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

IntroductionAn estimated 69 million traumatic brain injuries (TBI) occur each year worldwide, with most in low-income and middle-income countries. The CRASH-3 randomised trial found that intravenous administration of tranexamic acid within 3 hours of injury reduces head injury deaths in patients sustaining a mild or moderate TBI. We examined the cost-effectiveness of tranexamic acid treatment for TBI.MethodsA Markov decision model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with and without tranexamic acid, in addition to current practice. We modelled the decision in the UK and Pakistan from a health service perspective, over a lifetime time horizon. We used data from the CRASH-3 trial for the risk of death during the trial period (28 days) and patient quality of life, and data from the literature to estimate costs and long-term outcomes post-TBI. We present outcomes as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 2018 costs in pounds for the UK, and US dollars for Pakistan. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) per QALY gained were estimated, and compared with country specific cost-effective thresholds. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.ResultsTranexamic acid was highly cost-effective for patients with mild TBI and intracranial bleeding or patients with moderate TBI, at £4288 per QALY in the UK, and US$24 per QALY in Pakistan. Tranexamic acid was 99% and 98% cost-effective at the cost-effectiveness thresholds for the UK and Pakistan, respectively, and remained cost-effective across all deterministic sensitivity analyses. Tranexamic acid was even more cost-effective with earlier treatment administration. The cost-effectiveness for those with severe TBI was uncertain.ConclusionEarly administration of tranexamic acid is highly cost-effective for patients with mild or moderate TBI in the UK and Pakistan, relative to the cost-effectiveness thresholds used. The estimated ICERs suggest treatment is likely to be cost-effective across all income settings globally.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Heart ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 104 (12) ◽  
pp. 1006-1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J V McMurray ◽  
David Trueman ◽  
Elizabeth Hancock ◽  
Martin R Cowie ◽  
Andrew Briggs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveChronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) represents a major public health issue and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (formerly LCZ696) compared with an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) (enalapril) in the treatment of HF-REF from the perspective of healthcare providers in the UK, Denmark and Colombia.MethodsA cost-utility analysis was performed based on data from a multinational, Phase III randomised controlled trial. A decision-analytic model was developed based on a series of regression models, which extrapolated health-related quality of life, hospitalisation rates and survival over a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsIn the UK, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan (using cardiovascular mortality) was £17 100 (€20 400) versus enalapril. In Denmark, the ICER for sacubitril/valsartan was Kr 174 000 (€22 600). In Colombia, the ICER was COP$39.5 million (€11 200) per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that results were most sensitive to the extrapolation of mortality, duration of treatment effect and time horizon, but were robust to other structural changes, with most scenarios associated with ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold for all three country settings. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that sacubitril/valsartan was cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds was 68%–94% in the UK, 84% in Denmark and 95% in Colombia.ConclusionsOur analysis suggests that, in all three countries, sacubitril/valsartan is likely to be cost-effective compared with an ACEI (the current standard of care) in patients with HF-REF.

Cost-Effectiveness of Mobile App-Guided Training in Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST): A Randomized Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (06) ◽  
pp. 642-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Nilsson ◽  
Tobias Todsen ◽  
Yousif Subhi ◽  
Ole Graumann ◽  
Christian Nolsøe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Transfer Test ◽  
Clinical Skills ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Mobile App ◽  
Point Change ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Purpose Ultrasound training is associated with a long learning curve and use of substantial faculty resources. Self-directed ultrasound training may decrease the need for faculty-led teaching. Mobile apps seem promising for use in self-directed ultrasound training, but no studies have examined the cost-effectiveness of mobile app-guided training versus traditional formats such as textbook-guided training. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of mobile app-guided versus textbook-guided ultrasound training. Material and methods First-year residents (n = 38) with no previous ultrasound experience were randomized into mobile app-guided versus textbook-guided self-directed ultrasound training groups. Participants completed a transfer test involving four patient cases and a theoretical test on diagnostic accuracy. Two ultrasound experts assessed the residents’ performance using the Objective Structured Assessment of Ultrasound Skills (OSAUS) scale. The costs of developing mobile app and textbook material were calculated and used for the analysis of cost-effectiveness. Results 34 participants completed the transfer test. There was no statistically significant difference in test performance or diagnostic accuracy between the mobile app-guided (mean-OSAUS 42.3 % [95 %CI38.5 – 46.0 %]) and textbook-guided groups (mean-OSAUS 45.3 % [95 %CI39.3 – 51.3 %]) (d.f. [1.33] = 0.45, p = 0.41). However, development costs differed greatly for each instructional format. Textbook-guided training was significantly more cost-effective than mobile app-guided training (Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio -861 967 [95 %CI-1071.7 to-3.2] USD/pct. point change in OSAUS score). Conclusion Mobile app-guided ultrasound training is less cost-effective than textbook-guided self-directed training. This study underlines the need for careful evaluation of cost-effectiveness when introducing technological innovations for clinical skills training.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document