Kim Edmunds

Dr. Kim Edmunds

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
7 January 2021 in Implementation Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PRPenny Reeves
Penny Reeves
KEKim Edmunds
Kim Edmunds
ZSZoe Szewczyk
Zoe Szewczyk
AGAlice Grady
Alice Grady
Serene YoongSerene Yoong
Serene Yoong
ASAndrew Searles
Andrew Searles
Background: Despite the known benefits of healthy eating in childhood, few Australian childcare services provide food that is consistent with dietary guidelines. The effectiveness of a web-based menu planning intervention to increase childcare service provision of healthy foods and decrease provision of discretionary foods in long day-care services in Australia was assessed in a randomised controlled trial. Here we consider the costs, consequences, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the intervention using data collected within the trial. Methods: The prospective trial-based economic evaluation involved 54 childcare services across New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Services were randomised to a 12-month intervention or usual care. The intervention involved access to a web-based menu planning and decision support tool and online resources. Effectiveness measures included mean number of food groups, overall menu and individual food group compliance with dietary guidelines, and mean servings of food groups at 12 months. Costs (reported in $AUD, 2017/18) were evaluated from both health sector and societal perspectives. The direct cost to support uptake of the intervention was calculated, as were costs to each childcare service. The incremental cost of the intervention was calculated as the net difference in the cost to undertake menu planning and review plus the direct cost of the intervention. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) including uncertainty intervals were estimated for differences in costs and effects between intervention and control groups. A relative value index was calculated to determine overall value for money. Results: Over the 12 months of the trial, we calculated a difference in cost between usual practice and intervention groups of − $482 (95% UI − $859, − $56). While the measured increase in menu and food group compliance within the trial did not reach statistical significance, there were significant improvements in mean servings of fruit and discretionary food, represented in the cost-consequence analysis. The calculated relative value index of 1.1 suggests that the intervention returns acceptable value for money for the outcomes generated. Conclusion: Compared to usual practice, web-based programmes may offer an efficient and sustainable alternative for childcare services to improve the provision of healthy foods to children in their care. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000974404

1 April 2019 in Public Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PRP. Reeves
P. Reeves
KEKim Edmunds
Kim Edmunds
ASA. Searles
A. Searles
JWJ. Wiggers
J. Wiggers
Implementation interventions applied in public health are about using proven strategies to influence the uptake of evidence-based prevention and health promotion initiatives. The decision to invest in implementation has an opportunity cost, which can be overlooked. The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which economic evaluations have been applied to implementation interventions in public health. We conducted a systematic review of empirical studies examining the costs and consequences, cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit of strategies directed towards enhancing the implementation of public health interventions and policies in developed countries. The following databases were searched for English language publications reporting both effect measures and costs, from 1990 to current: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit, EPPI-Centre database of health promotion research, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Informit and Scopus. The search strategy returned 3229 records after duplicate removal, from which we included 14 economic evaluations. All the included evaluations were conducted and published after 2000. Twelve of the 14 evaluations were based on controlled trials and two reported hypothetical modelled scenarios. The methodologic rigour and compliance with reporting guidelines for economic evaluations was highly varied and not related to the publication date. Our findings offer the first insight into the application and methodologic rigour of economic evaluations of implementation strategies supporting public health policies and interventions. To usefully inform public health policy and investment decisions, there needs to be greater application of economic evaluation to understand the cost-effectiveness of alternative implementation efforts. This review highlights the great paucity and mixed quality of the evidence on this topic and offers guidance by way of a checklist to improve the quality and reporting of future evaluations.

7 January 2020 in Supportive Care in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KEKim Edmunds
Kim Edmunds
HTHaitham Tuffaha
Haitham Tuffaha
DGDaniel Galvão
Daniel Galvão
Paul ScuffhamPaul Scuffham
Paul Scuffham
RNRobert U Newton
Robert U Newton

18 May 2023 in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HTHaitham Tuffaha
Haitham Tuffaha
KEKim Edmunds
Kim Edmunds
DFDavid Fairbairn
David Fairbairn
MRMatthew J Roberts
Matthew J Roberts
SCSuzanne Chambers
Suzanne Chambers
Paul ScuffhamPaul Scuffham
Paul Scuffham
Background: Genetic testing, to identify pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in prostate cancer, is valuable in guiding treatment decisions for men with prostate cancer and to inform cancer prevention and early detection options for their immediate blood relatives. There are various guidelines and consensus statements for genetic testing in prostate cancer. Our aim is to review genetic testing recommendations across current guidelines and consensus statements and the level of evidence supporting those recommendations. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Electronic database searches and manual searches of grey literature, including websites of key organisations were conducted. Using the Population, Concept, Context (PCC) framework, this scoping review included: men with prostate cancer or men at high risk of prostate cancer and their biological families; existing guidelines and consensus statements with supporting evidence for genetic testing of men with prostate cancer from any geographical location worldwide. Results: Of the 660 citations identified, 23 guidelines and consensus statements met the inclusion criteria for the scoping review. Based on different levels of evidence about who should be tested and how, a diverse range of recommendations were identified. There was general consensus among the guidelines and consensus statements that men with metastatic disease be offered genetic testing; however, there was less consensus in relation to genetic testing in localised prostate cancer. While there was some consensus in relation to which genes to test, recommendations varied regarding who to test, testing methods and implementation. Conclusion: While genetic testing in prostate cancer is routinely recommended and numerous guidelines exist, there is still considerable lack of consensus regarding who should be tested and how they should be tested. Further evidence is needed to inform value-based genetic testing strategies for implementation in practice.

22 July 2020 in Supportive Care in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KEKim Edmunds
Kim Edmunds
HTHaitham Tuffaha
Haitham Tuffaha
Paul ScuffhamPaul Scuffham
Paul Scuffham
DGDaniel Galvão
Daniel Galvão
RNRobert Newton
Robert Newton

23 August 2018 in BMC Health Services Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KEKim Edmunds
Kim Edmunds
RLRod Ling
Rod Ling
ASAnthony Shakeshaft
Anthony Shakeshaft
Christopher M DoranChristopher M Doran
Christopher M Doran
ASAndrew Searles
Andrew Searles
The aim of this systematic literature review is to identify and critique full economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people with the purpose of informing the design of future rigorous economic evaluations of such intervention programs. A PRISMA compliant search of the literature between 2000 and April 2018 was conducted to identify full economic evaluations of youth focussed interventions for at risk young people. Duplicates were removed and two researchers independently screened the article titles and abstracts according to PICOS criteria for exclusion and inclusion. The remaining full text articles were assessed for eligibility and a quality assessment of the included articles was conducted using the Drummond checklist. The database, grey literature and hand searches located 488 studies of interventions for at risk young people. After preliminary screening of titles and abstracts, 104 studies remained for full text examination and 29 empirical studies containing 32 separate economic evaluations were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. These comprised 13 cost-benefit analyses (41%), 17 cost-effectiveness analyses (53%), one cost-utility analysis (3%) and a social return on investment (3%). Three main methodological challenges were identified: 1. attribution of effects; 2. measuring and valuing outcomes; and 3. identifying relevant costs and consequences. A cost-benefit analysis would best capture the dynamic nature of a multi-component intervention for high risk young people, incorporating broader intersectoral outcomes and enabling measurement of more domains of risk. Prospective long-term data collection and a strong study design that incorporates a control group contribute to the quality of economic evaluation. Extrapolation of impact into the future is important for this population, in order to account for the time lag in effect of many impacts and benefits arising from youth interventions.