Search

Considerable evidence exists regarding the role housing plays in the determination of health and well-being outcomes. Despite the scale of health concerns arising from housing considerations, there are very few economic analyses of housing programs that seek to improve health outcomes by addressing the physical infrastructure of the living environment. The NSW Housing for Health (HfH) program is an environmental health initiative funded and administered by NSW Health, that addresses health-related hardware in residential accommodation to ensure the home environment supports healthy living practices to ultimately improve health outcomes for residents. This study reviews the economic methods that have been applied to comparable programs and identifies relevant costs and benefits that should be addressed. Founded on the requirement from decision makers, and the insights from the review, the paper outlines a protocol for a cost-benefit analysis that accounts for the disparate health, social, economic and intangible benefits generated from the HfH program and the resources utilised to realise these outcomes.

Abstract Research Impact Assessment (RIA) represents one of a suite of policies intended to improve the impact generated from investment in health and medical research (HMR). Positivist indicator-based approaches to RIA are widely implemented but increasingly criticised as theoretically problematic, unfair, and burdensome. This commentary proposes there are useful outcomes that emerge from the process of applying an indicator-based RIA framework, separate from those encapsulated in the metrics themselves. The aim for this commentary is to demonstrate how the act of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA can serve to optimise the productive gains from the investment in HMR. Prior research found that the issues regarding RIA are less about the choice of indicators/metrics, and more about the discussions prompted and activities incentivised by the process. This insight provides an opportunity to utilise indicator-based methods to purposely optimise the research impact. An indicator-based RIA framework specifically designed to optimise research impacts should: focus on researchers and the research process, rather than institution-level measures; utilise a project level unit of analysis that provides control to researchers and supports collaboration and accountability; provide for prospective implementation of RIA and the prospective orientation of research; establish a line of sight to the ultimate anticipated beneficiaries and impacts; Include process metrics/indicators to acknowledge interim steps on the pathway to final impacts; integrate ‘next’ users and prioritise the utilisation of research outputs as a critical measure; Integrate and align the incentives for researchers/research projects arising from RIA, with those existing within the prevailing research system; integrate with existing peer-review processes; and, adopt a system-wide approach where incremental improvements in the probability of translation from individual research projects, yields higher impact across the whole funding portfolio. Optimisation of the impacts from HMR investment represents the primary purpose of Research Impact policy. The process of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA, which engages the researcher during the inception and planning phase, can directly contribute to this goal through improvements in the probability that an individual project will generate interim impacts. The research project funding process represents a promising forum to integrate this approach within the existing research system.

Introduction The Australian population presenting with surgical pathology is becoming older, frailer and more comorbid. Shared decision-making is rapidly becoming the gold standard of care for patients considering high-risk surgery to ensure that appropriate, value-based healthcare decisions are made. Positive benefits around patient perception of decision-making in the immediacy of the decision are described in the literature. However, short-term and long-term holistic patient-centred outcomes and cost implications for the health service require further examination to better understand the full impact of shared decision-making in this population.Methods We propose a novel multidisciplinary shared decision-making model of care in the perioperative period for patients considering high-risk surgery in the fields of general, vascular and head and neck surgery. We assess it in a two arm prospective randomised controlled trial. Patients are randomised to either ‘standard’ perioperative care, or to a multidisciplinary (surgeon, anaesthetist and end-of-life care nurse practitioner or social worker) shared decision-making consultation. The primary outcome is decisional conflict prior to any surgical procedure occurring. Secondary outcomes include the patient’s treatment choice, how decisional conflict changes longitudinally over the subsequent year, patient-centred outcomes including life impact and quality of life metrics, as well as morbidity and mortality. Additionally, we will report on healthcare resource use including subsequent admissions or representations to a healthcare facility up to 1 year.Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH13349). Study findings will be presented at local and national conferences and within scientific research journals.Trial registration number ACTRN12619001543178.

BackgroundThe aim of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of an online health behaviour change intervention-Prevent 2nd Stroke (P2S)-at improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) amongst stroke survivors at 6 months of follow-up.Methods and findingsA prospective, blinded-endpoint randomised controlled trial, with stroke survivors as the unit of randomisation, was conducted between March 2018 and November 2019. Adult stroke survivors between 6 and 36 months post-stroke with capacity to use the intervention (determined by a score of ≥4 on the Modified Rankin Scale) and who had access and willingness to use the internet were recruited via mail-out invitations from 1 national and 1 regional stroke registry. Participants completed baseline (n = 399) and 6-month follow-up (n = 356; 89%) outcome assessments via computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). At baseline the sample had an average age of 66 years (SD 12), and 65% were male. Randomisation occurred at the end of the baseline survey; CATI assessors and independent statisticians were blind to group allocation. The intervention group received remote access for a 12-week period to the online-only P2S program (n = 199; n = 28 lost at follow-up). The control group were emailed and posted a list of internet addresses of generic health websites (n = 200; n = 15 lost at follow-up). The primary outcome was HRQoL as measured by the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS; self-rated global health); the outcome was assessed for differences between treatment groups at follow-up, adjusting for baseline measures. Secondary outcomes were HRQoL as measured by the EQ-5D (descriptive health state), diet quality, physical activity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, mood, physical functioning, and independent living. All outcomes included the variable 'stroke event (stroke/transient ischaemic attack/other)' as a covariate, and analysis was intention-to-treat. At 6 months, median EQ-VAS HRQoL score was significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group (85 vs 80, difference 5, 95% CI 0.79-9.21, p = 0.020). The results were robust to the assumption the data were missing at random; however, the results were not robust to the assumption that the difference in HRQoL between those with complete versus missing data was at least 3 points. Significantly higher proportions of people in the intervention group reported no problems with personal care (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.05-4.48, p = 0.0359) and usual activities (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.06-2.60, p = 0.0256) than in the control group. There were no significant differences between groups on all other secondary outcomes. The main limitation of the study is that the sample comprises mostly 'well' stroke survivors with limited to no disability.ConclusionsThe P2S online healthy lifestyle program improved stroke survivors' self-reported global ratings of HRQoL (as measured by EQ-VAS) at 6-month follow-up. Online platforms represent a promising tool to engage and support some stroke survivors.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617001205325.