Search

Background: There have been several calls for estimations of costs and consequences of headache interventions to inform European public-health policies. In a previous paper, in the absence of universally accepted methodology, we developed headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache. Here we apply this methodology and present the findings. Methods: Data sources were published evidence and expert opinions, including those from an earlier economic evaluation framework using the WHO-CHOICE model. We used three headache-type-specific analytical models, for migraine, tension-type-headache (TTH) and medication-overuse-headache (MOH). We considered three European Region case studies, from Luxembourg, Russia and Spain to include a range of health-care systems, comparing current (suboptimal) care versus target care (structured services implemented, with provider-training and consumer-education). We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider and societal perspectives (2020 figures, euros). We expressed effectiveness as healthy life years (HLYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness as incremental cost-effectiveness-ratios (ICERs; cost to be invested/HLY gained). We applied WHO thresholds for cost-effectiveness. Results: The models demonstrated increased effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness (migraine) or cost saving (TTH, MOH) from the provider perspective over one and 5 years and consistently across the health-care systems and settings. From the societal perspective, we found structured headache services would be economically successful, not only delivering increased effectiveness but also cost saving across headache types and over time. The predicted magnitude of cost saving correlated positively with country wage levels. Lost productivity had a major impact on these estimates, but sensitivity analyses showed the intervention remained cost-effective across all models when we assumed that remedying disability would recover only 20% of lost productivity. Conclusions: This is the first study to propose a health-care solution for headache, in the form of structured headache services, and evaluate it economically in multiple settings. Despite numerous challenges, we demonstrated that economic evaluation of headache services, in terms of outcomes and costs, is feasible as well as necessary. Furthermore, it is strongly supportive of the proposed intervention, while its framework is general enough to be easily adapted and implemented across Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The current European crisis in human resources in health has opened the debate about working conditions and fair wages. This is the case with Resident doctors, which have faced challenges throughout Europe. In Portugal, they account for about a third of the doctors in the Portuguese National Health Service. No studies to date objectively demonstrate the working conditions and responsibilities undertaken. This study aims to quantify the residents' workload and working conditions. Methods: Observational, retrospective cross-sectional study which involved a survey on the clinical and training activity of Portuguese residents, actively working in September 2020. The survey was distributed through e-mail to residents' representatives and directly to those affiliated with the Independent Union of Portuguese Doctors. The descriptive analysis assessed current workload, and logistic regression models analyzed associations with geographical location and residency seniority. Results: There were a total of 2,012 participants (19.6% of invited residents). Of the residents giving consultations, 85.3% do so with full autonomy. In the emergency department, 32.1% of the residents work 24 h shifts and 25.1% work shifts without a specialist doctor present. Regarding medical training, 40.8% invest over EUR 1,500 annually. Autonomy in consultations was associated with being a Family Medicine resident (OR 4.219, p < 0.001), being a senior resident (OR 5.143, p < 0.001), and working in the Center (OR 1.685, p = 0.009) and South regions (OR 2.172, p < 0.001). Seniority was also associated with investing over EUR 1,500 in training annually (OR 1.235, p = 0.021). Conclusion: Residents work far more than the contracted 40 h week, often on an unpaid basis. They present a high degree of autonomy in their practice, make a very significant personal and financial investment in medical training, with almost no time dedicated to studying during working hours. There is a need to provide better working conditions for health professionals, including residents, for the sake of the sustainability of health systems across Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: With high public debts and suffering economies after the COVID-19 pandemic, governments will look for ways to promote recovery. Literature substantially reports on the favorable macroeconomic impact of the healthcare sector. Design/methodology/approach: The authors use data on 19 European countries. Over 30 variables are analyzed to find factors that foster or suppress the economic impact of the healthcare sector. The economic impact is thereby expressed through five types of total multipliers, acting as dependent variables. The authors estimate multiple econometric models. Findings: The results indicate factors that intensify or reduce the economic impact of the healthcare sector as they cause the value of one or more economic multipliers to augment or to diminish. Positive effects are expected from the growth of public funds' share in total healthcare expenditure leading to a higher output, income and value-added multipliers. The import multiplier diminishes when expenditure on healthcare as percent of GDP rises. On the other hand, rising expenditure on pharmaceuticals in the share of healthcare expenditure lowers the output multiplier. Rising GDP per capita and higher healthcare systems' technical efficiency cause the employment multiplier to lower. Originality/value: Policymakers can strengthen the economic impact of the healthcare sector on the national economy. This could be achieved by stimulating factors, being identified in our study. Strengthening the economic impact of the healthcare sector is especially welcomed when fostering economic recovery is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health economic evaluations support health-care decision-making by providing information on the costs and consequences of health interventions. No universally accepted methodology exists for modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to close treatment gaps for headache disorders in countries of Europe (or elsewhere). Our aim here, within the European Brain Council's Value-of-Treatment project, was to develop headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache. Methods: We developed three headache-type-specific decision-analytical models using the WHO-CHOICE framework and adapted these for three European Region country settings (Luxembourg, Russia and Spain), diverse in geographical location, population size, income level and health-care systems and for which we had population-based data. Each model compared current (suboptimal) care vs target care (delivered in accordance with the structured headache services model). Epidemiological and economic data were drawn from studies conducted by the Global Campaign against Headache; data on efficacy of treatments were taken from published randomized controlled trials; assumptions on uptake of treatments, and those made for Healthy Life Year (HLY) calculations and target-care benefits, were agreed with experts. We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider (main analyses) and societal (secondary analyses) perspectives (2020 figures, euros). Results: The analytical models were successfully developed and applied to each country setting. Headache-related costs (including use of health-care resources and lost productivity) and health outcomes (HLYs) were mapped across populations. The same calculations were repeated for each alternative (current vs target care). Analyses of the differences in costs and health outcomes between alternatives and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are presented elsewhere. Conclusions: This study presents the first headache-type-specific analytical models to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing structured headache services in countries in the European Region. The models are robust, and can assist policy makers in allocating health budgets between interventions to maximize the health of populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]