HSR - York Health Economics Consortium
Centre de recherche public Accréditation CIR
Contact |
||
|
Téléphone : 44 (0)1904 433 620
Mail : yhec [ at ] york.ac.uk
Adresse :
Level 2 Market Square
University of York
YO10 5NH York
United Kingdom
|
||
|
Etablissements de rattachement |
||
|
Consultez cette fiche en intégralité ? |
||
|
Consultez cette fiche et près de 50 000 autres fiches de Centres de Recherche dans plus de 30 pays européens sur Expernova.com !
Inscrivez-vous ou contactez-nous pour une démonstration personnalisée.
Il s’agit de votre centre de Recherche ? Inscrivez-vous gratuitement et complétez vos informations. |
||
|
Description
(Extrait du site web) |
||
|
YHEC was originally established to provide health economic support to NHS organisations and this continues to account for a significant proportion of our research. Our applied health services research experience includes service reviews at both a local and national level, covering a wide range of interventions and policy initiatives. These reviews have helped to inform policy making at both a national and local level in areas such as oncology, public health, paediatrics and maternity care.
Our service reviews are often made up of multi-disciplinary teams capable of providing a range of skills and capabilities, including: - Analysis of health services activity data, such as Hospital Episodes Statistics - Questionnaire and survey design - Qualitative research experience, such as focus groups and one-to-one interviews - Action learning |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Profil scientifique partiel |
||
|
|
||
|
Domaines étudiés partiels
|
||
|
|
||
|
Domaines scientifiques
|
||
|
||
|
Quelques documents de York Health Economics Consortium
|
||
|
A cost effectiveness analysis within a randomised controlled trial of post-acute care of older people in a community hospital
Auteurs :
A. Forster, J. Green, K. Lowson, J. O'reilly, N. Small et J. Young
Masquer le résumé
Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of post-acute care for older people in a locality based community hospital compared with a department for care of elderly people in a district general hospital, which admits patients aged over 76 years with acute medical conditions.
Design: Cost effectiveness analysis within a randomised controlled trial.
Setting Community hospital and district general hospital in Yorkshire, England.
Participants: 220 patients needing rehabilitation after an acute illness for which they required admission to hospital.
Interventions Multidisciplinary care in the district general hospital or prompt transfer to the community hospital.
Main outcome measures EuroQol EQ-5D scores transformed into quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and health and social service costs over six months from randomisation.
Results The mean QALY score for the community hospital group was marginally non-significantly higher than that for the district general hospital group (0.38 v 0.35) at six months after recruitment. The mean (standard deviation) costs per patient of the health and social services resources used were similar for both groups: community hospital group 7233 pound (E10 567; $13 341) (5031) pound, district general hospital group 7351 pound (6229) pound, and these findings were robust to several sensitivity analyses. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for community hospital care dominated. A cost effectiveness acceptability curve, based on bootstrapped simulations, suggests that at a willingness to pay threshold of 10 pound 000 per QALY, 51% of community hospital cases will be cost effective, which rises to 53% of cases when the threshold is 30 pound 000 per QALY.
Conclusion: Post-acute care for older people in a locality based community hospital is of similar cost effectiveness to that of an elderly care department in a district general hospital.
Source :
White Rose Research
Estimation of the additional costs of chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer
Auteurs :
N Gower, L Maslove, R Rudd, S Spiro, R Stephens et P West
Pas de résumé disponible
Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different?
Auteurs :
S.J. Coons, J.A. Johnson, P. Kind, N. Luo et J.W. Shaw
Masquer le résumé
PURPOSE:
We sought to compare directly elicited valuations for EQ-5D health states between the US and UK general adult populations.
METHODS:
We analyzed data from 2 EQ-5D valuation studies where, using similar time trade-off protocols, values for 42 common health states were elicited from representative samples of the US and UK general adult populations. First, US and UK population mean valuations were estimated and compared for each health state. Second, random-effect models were used to compare the US and UK valuations while adjusting for known predictors of EQ-5D valuations (ie, age, sex, health state descriptors) and to investigate whether and how the valuations differ.
RESULTS:
Population mean valuations of the 42 health states ranged from -0.38 to 0.88 for the United States and from -0.54 to 0.88 for the United Kingdom, with the US mean scores being numerically higher than the UK for 39 health states (mean difference: 0.11; range: -0.01 to 0.25). After adjusting for the main effects of known predictors, the average difference in valuations was 0.10 (P < 0.001). The magnitude of the difference in the US and UK valuations was not constant across EQ-5D health states; greater differences in valuations were present in health states characterized by extreme problems.
CONCLUSIONS:
Meaningful differences exist in directly elicited TTO valuations of EQ-5D health states between the US and UK general populations. Therefore, EQ-5D index scores generated using valuations from the US general population should be used for studies aiming to reflect health state preferences of the US general public.
Source :
White Rose Research
Incidence and costs of unintentional falls in older people in the United Kingdom
Auteurs :
S Chaplin, R Legood et P Scuffham
Pas de résumé disponible
Incidence and costs of unintentional falls in older people in the United Kingdom
Auteurs :
S Chaplin, R Legood et P Scuffham
Pas de résumé disponible
Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures
Auteurs :
P. Kind, S. Macran et H. Weatherly
Masquer le résumé
OBJECTIVES
The relative performance of three widely used generic health status measures (EQ-5D, a modified HUI3 [mHUI3], and SF-12) was compared within a general population sample.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data were taken from a cohort of persons identified from the patient list of a large general practice in York, UK. Two-way comparisons were made between EQ-5D and mHUI3 and EQ-5D and SF-12. The measures were assessed in terms of their practical viability, coverage, and discrimination. Practical viability was evaluated in terms of the extent of missing responses and the proportion indicating difficulty with a measure. Coverage examined the range of responses across the items in the measures. Discrimination examined the capacity of the measures to discriminate between persons according to their self-reported morbidity and socioeconomic status.
RESULTS
One thousand one hundred twenty-six persons completed a postal questionnaire containing EQ-5D and either mHUI3 (n = 593) or SF-12 (n = 533). Missing responses were low across all three instruments. SF-12 showed a broad distribution of responses across its items however, responses on the mHUI3 hearing, speech and dexterity dimensions and the EQ-5D self-care dimension were highly skewed, with few persons reporting problems. In terms of summary scores, mHUI3 identified more mild health states than EQ-5D. EQ-5D and mHUI3 showed slightly better discrimination than SF-12.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the inherent differences in their descriptive systems and scoring functions, no one instrument performed better or worse than the other with respect to the criteria applied in this study. Some of the issues to be considered when choosing a population health measure are discussed.
Source :
White Rose Research
Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures
Auteurs :
P. Kind, S. Macran et H. Weatherly
Masquer le résumé
OBJECTIVES
The relative performance of three widely used generic health status measures (EQ-5D, a modified HUI3 [mHUI3], and SF-12) was compared within a general population sample.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data were taken from a cohort of persons identified from the patient list of a large general practice in York, UK. Two-way comparisons were made between EQ-5D and mHUI3 and EQ-5D and SF-12. The measures were assessed in terms of their practical viability, coverage, and discrimination. Practical viability was evaluated in terms of the extent of missing responses and the proportion indicating difficulty with a measure. Coverage examined the range of responses across the items in the measures. Discrimination examined the capacity of the measures to discriminate between persons according to their self-reported morbidity and socioeconomic status.
RESULTS
One thousand one hundred twenty-six persons completed a postal questionnaire containing EQ-5D and either mHUI3 (n = 593) or SF-12 (n = 533). Missing responses were low across all three instruments. SF-12 showed a broad distribution of responses across its items however, responses on the mHUI3 hearing, speech and dexterity dimensions and the EQ-5D self-care dimension were highly skewed, with few persons reporting problems. In terms of summary scores, mHUI3 identified more mild health states than EQ-5D. EQ-5D and mHUI3 showed slightly better discrimination than SF-12.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the inherent differences in their descriptive systems and scoring functions, no one instrument performed better or worse than the other with respect to the criteria applied in this study. Some of the issues to be considered when choosing a population health measure are discussed.
Source :
White Rose Research
|
||