Search

Background: The value of a life is regularly monetised by government departments for informing resource allocation. Guidance documents indicate how economic evaluation should be conducted, often specifying precise values for different impacts. However, we find different values of life and health are used in analyses by departments within the same government despite commonality in desired outcomes. This creates potential inconsistencies in considering trade-offs within a broader public sector spending budget. We provide evidence to better inform the political process and to raise important issues in assessing the value of public expenditure across different sectors. Methods: Our document analysis identifies thresholds, explicitly or implicitly, as observed in government-related publications in the following public sectors: health, social care, transport, and environment. We include both demand-side and supply-side thresholds, understood as societies' and governments' willingness to pay for health gains. We look at key countries that introduced formal economic evaluation processes early on and have impacted other countries' policy development: Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. We also present a framework to consider how governments allocate resources across different public services. Results: Our analysis supports that identifying and describing the Value of a Life from disparate public sector activities in a manner that facilitates comparison is theoretically meaningful. The optimal allocation of resources across sectors depends on the relative position of benefits across different attributes, weighted by the social value that society puts on them. The value of a Quality-Adjusted Life Year is generally used as a demand-side threshold by Departments of transport and environment. It exceeds those used in health, often by a large enough proportion to be a multiple thereof. Decisions made across departments are generally based on an unspecified rationing rule. Conclusions: Comparing government expenditure across different public sector departments, in terms of the value of each department outcome, is not only possible but also desirable. It is essential for an optimal resource allocation to identify the relevant social attributes and to quantify the value of these attributes for each department. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementing evidence into clinical practice is a key focus of healthcare improvements to reduce unwarranted variation. Dissemination of evidence-based recommendations and knowledge brokering have emerged as potential strategies to achieve evidence implementation by influencing resource allocation decisions. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of these two research implementation strategies to facilitate evidence-informed healthcare management decisions for the provision of inpatient weekend allied health services.Methods and Findings: This multicentre, single-blinded (data collection and analysis), three-group parallel cluster randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation was conducted in Australian and New Zealand hospitals between February 2018 and January 2020. Clustering and randomisation took place at the organisation level where weekend allied health staffing decisions were made (e.g., network of hospitals or single hospital). Hospital wards were nested within these decision-making structures. Three conditions were compared over a 12-month period: (1) usual practice waitlist control; (2) dissemination of written evidence-based practice recommendations; and (3) access to a webinar-based knowledge broker in addition to the recommendations. The primary outcome was the alignment of weekend allied health provision with practice recommendations at the cluster and ward levels, addressing the adoption, penetration, and fidelity to the recommendations. The secondary outcome was mean hospital length of stay at the ward level. Outcomes were collected at baseline and 12 months later. A total of 45 clusters (n = 833 wards) were randomised to either control (n = 15), recommendation (n = 16), or knowledge broker (n = 14) conditions. Four (9%) did not provide follow-up data, and no adverse events were recorded. No significant effect was found with either implementation strategy for the primary outcome at the cluster level (recommendation versus control β 18.11 [95% CI -8,721.81 to 8,758.02] p = 0.997; knowledge broker versus control β 1.24 [95% CI -6,992.60 to 6,995.07] p = 1.000; recommendation versus knowledge broker β -9.12 [95% CI -3,878.39 to 3,860.16] p = 0.996) or ward level (recommendation versus control β 0.01 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.75] p = 0.983; knowledge broker versus control β -0.12 [95% CI -0.54 to 0.30] p = 0.581; recommendation versus knowledge broker β -0.19 [-1.04 to 0.65] p = 0.651). There was no significant effect between strategies for the secondary outcome at ward level (recommendation versus control β 2.19 [95% CI -1.36 to 5.74] p = 0.219; knowledge broker versus control β -0.55 [95% CI -1.16 to 0.06] p = 0.075; recommendation versus knowledge broker β -3.75 [95% CI -8.33 to 0.82] p = 0.102). None of the control or knowledge broker clusters transitioned to partial or full alignment with the recommendations. Three (20%) of the clusters who only received the written recommendations transitioned from nonalignment to partial alignment. Limitations include underpowering at the cluster level sample due to the grouping of multiple geographically distinct hospitals to avoid contamination.Conclusions: Owing to a lack of power at the cluster level, this trial was unable to identify a difference between the knowledge broker strategy and dissemination of recommendations compared with usual practice for the promotion of evidence-informed resource allocation to inpatient weekend allied health services. Future research is needed to determine the interactions between different implementation strategies and healthcare contexts when translating evidence into healthcare practice.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000029291. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Disease surveillance and response are critical components of epidemic preparedness. The disease response, in most cases, is a set of reactive measures that follow the outcomes of the disease surveillance. Hence, timely surveillance is a prerequisite for an effective response. Methodology/principal findings: We apply epidemiological soundness criteria in combination with the Latent Influence Point Process and time-to-event models to construct a disease spread network. The network implicitly quantifies the fertility (whether a case leads to secondary cases) and reproduction (number of secondary cases per infectious case) of the cases as well as the size and generations (of the infection chain) of the outbreaks. We test our approach by applying it to historic dengue case data from Australia. Using the data, we empirically confirm that high morbidity relates positively with delay in disease response. Moreover, we identify what constitutes timely surveillance by applying various thresholds of disease response delay to the network and report their impact on case fertility, reproduction, number of generations and ultimately, outbreak size. We observe that enforcing a response delay threshold of 5 days leads to a large average reduction across all parameters (occurrence 87%, reproduction 83%, outbreak size 80% and outbreak generations 47%), whereas extending the threshold to 10 days, in comparison, significantly limits the effectiveness of the response actions. Lastly, we identify the components of the disease surveillance system that can be calibrated to achieve the identified thresholds. Conclusion: We identify practically achievable, timely surveillance thresholds (on temporal scale) that lead to an effective response and identify how they can be satisfied. Our approach can be utilized to provide guidelines on spatially and demographically targeted resource allocation for public awareness campaigns as well as to improve diagnostic abilities and turn-around times for the doctors and laboratories involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]