Search

Introduction Caseload midwifery (continuity of midwifery carer) offers benefits including lower caesarean section rates, lower risks of preterm birth and stillbirth, and improved maternal satisfaction of care. Despite these advantages, concerns about additional costs hinder widespread implementation. This study examines the cost of caseload midwifery compared with standard maternity care from the perspective of both public hospitals and public funders.Methods A cost analysis was conducted using data from a randomised controlled trial of 2314 low-risk pregnant women in Melbourne, Australia. Women randomised to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a primary midwife, with some care provided by a ‘back-up’ midwife. Women in standard care received midwifery-led care with varying levels of continuity, junior obstetric care or community-based medical care. The cost analysis compared differences in mean costs of health resources to public hospitals and to public funders. Additionally, a budget impact analysis estimated total costs to the health system between 2023 and 2027.Results For public hospitals, there was no significant difference in overall costs between women receiving caseload midwifery (n=1146) versus standard care (n=1151) ($A12 363 (SD: $A4967) vs $A12 323 (SD: $A7404); p=0.85). Conversely, public funders incurred lower expenditures for women receiving caseload midwifery ($A20 330 (SD: $A8312)) versus standard care ($A21 637 (SD: $A11 818); p

Abstract Background In many countries, children who are diagnosed with autism during the first 5 years of life are offered a range of early intervention options. These options vary considerably in the theoretical approaches and techniques applied, their intensity and duration, settings, the person/s delivering supports and the training they require. Early interventions are a significant contributor to total autism-related costs in Western countries, but only in the last 10–20 years has there been adequate outcome data to enable the comparison of different interventions’ cost-effectiveness. This protocol describes a scoping review to better understand what economic evaluations have been completed in this field, and the methods used to date. Methods We will systematically search the following databases from their inception to 2021 for eligible studies: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Econlit, PEDE, NHS EED and HTA. Full economic evaluations of any types of early intervention for children with autism prior to school entry will be included. Two reviewers will screen the studies, extract the data and assess the study quality using established checklists. The risk of bias will be assessed using the extended CHEC-list for all studies and, additionally, the Philips checklist for modelled studies. Quality of reporting will be assessed using the CHEERS checklist. A narrative synthesis will be completed to collate the findings, describe the methods used and identify which interventions have been researched from an economic perspective. Discussion This review will provide researchers, policymakers and service providers with current information about the economic evidence for early interventions for young children with autism and point to priorities for further research. It will inform future economic evaluations by highlighting the gaps or inconsistencies in the methods used to date. Limitations of the review will be acknowledged and discussed. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/sj7kt

Abstract Background A large proportion of the burden of disease is preventable, yet investment in health promotion and disease prevention programmes remains a small share of the total health budget in many countries. The perception that there is paucity of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of public health programmes is seen as a barrier to policy change. The aim of this scoping review is to conduct a census of economic evaluations in primary prevention in order to identify and map the existing evidence. Methods This review is an update of a prior census and will include full economic evaluations of primary prevention programmes conducted in a community-based setting that were published between 2014 and 2019. The search of electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase, and NHS-EED for 2014) will be supplemented by a search for grey literature in OpenGrey and a search of the reference lists of reviews of economic evaluations identified in our searches. Retrieved citations will be imported into Covidence® and independently screened in a two-stage process by two reviewers (abstracts and full papers). Any disagreements on the eligibility of a citation will be resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. Included studies will then be categorised by one independent reviewer according to a four-part typology covering the type of health promotion intervention, the risk factor being tackled, the setting in which the intervention took place and the population most affected by the intervention. New to this version of the census, we will also document whether or not the intervention sets out specifically to address inequalities in health. Discussion This review will produce an annotated bibliography of all economic evaluations plus a report summarising the current scope and content of the economic evidence (highlighting where it is plentiful and where it is lacking) and describing any changes in the type of economic evidence available for the various categories of disease prevention programmes since the last census. This will allow us to identify where future evaluative efforts should be focused to enhance the economic evidence base regarding primary prevention interventions. Systematic review registration Registration is being sought concurrently.

Telehealth services may improve access to care, but there are concerns around whether availability of telehealth may increase care utilization. We assessed whether usage of telehealth was associated with differential primary care utilization at a large, urban public healthcare system. Using electronic health record data from 23 primary care clinics, we categorized patients as telehealth users and non-users. Then, we compared the number of visits per patient between groups using Welch's t-tests while stratifying by comorbidity count. We used multivariable Poisson regression to test for associations between telehealth usage and visit count while controlling for other demographic factors. Compared with telehealth non-users, telehealth users had approximately 1 more primary care visit per patient over the year regardless of comorbidity count or other patient characteristics. Availability of telehealth services may be associated with increased primary care utilization in a safety-net setting, though further research on outcomes, costs of care, and patient and clinician experiences is needed to better inform decisions regarding provision and reimbursement of telehealth services.

Increased investment in primary care is associated with lower healthcare costs and improved population health. The allocation of scarce resources should be driven by robust models that adequately describe primary care activities and spending within a health system, and allow comparisons within and across health systems. However, disparate definitions result in wide variations in estimates of spending on primary care. We propose a new model that allows for a dynamic assessment of primary care spending (PC Spend) within the context of a system’s total healthcare budget. The model articulates varied definitions of primary care through a tiered structure which includes overall spending on primary care services, spending on services delivered by primary care professionals and spending delivered by providers that can be characterised by the ‘4Cs’ (first contact, continuous, comprehensive and coordinated care). This unifying framework allows a more refined description of services to be included in any estimate of primary care spend and also supports measurement of primary care spending across nations of varying economic development, accommodating data limitations and international health system differences. It provides a goal for best accounting while also offering guidance, comparability and assessments of how primary care expenditures are associated with outcomes. Such a framework facilitates comparison through the creation of standard definitions and terms, and it also has the potential to foster new areas of research that facilitate robust policy analysis at the national and international levels.

Here we report a case of a 15-year-old female who had originally been diagnosed and treated unsuccessfully for schizophrenia, psychosis, severe anxiety, and depression. More in-depth history revealed an abrupt onset of her symptoms with remote acute infections and many exhibited characteristics of obsessive compulsive disorder with rituals. Work-up for underlying infectious, immunodeficiency, and autoimmune causes was unrevealing except for very high levels of anti-neuronal antibodies which have been linked to Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS). Treatment options were discussed with the family and it was decided to use a course of plasmapheresis based on previous studies demonstrating efficacy and its safety profile. After course of therapy, there was a dramatic resolution of her psychosis, OCD traits, and anxiety. She was able to stop all of her antipsychotic and anxiety medications and resume many of her previous normal daily activities. The effect of this treatment has been sustained to the present time. This case emphasizes the importance of exploring nontraditional treatments for severe, treatment-resistant mental illness which requires a multidisciplinary approach. Further research is warranted in larger populations to investigate pathomechanisms and treatment of PANs/PANDAs.