Objectives: To provide an overview of alternative approaches to modelling in economic evaluation, and to highlight situations where each of the alternative modelling techniques should be employed. Methods: A review of the available approaches to modelling in the economic evaluation of health care interventions with a leading discussion of examples of published studies leading to guidance in the selection of an appropriate approach in different circumstances. Results: The main approaches to modelling used in economic evaluations in health care are decision trees, Markov models and individual sampling models. These methods assume independence of individuals within the model. Where interaction between individuals is important, other methods such as discrete-event simulation or system dynamics are preferable. Conclusions: The paper highlights the crucial question to be answered when selecting the approach to modelling: can the individuals being simulated in the model be regarded as independent? This issue is very commonly not recognised by analysts but is fundamental to the appropriate application of modelling in economic evaluation.

Health Technology Assessment Volume: 11, Issue: 8, Published in March 2007

Background: As co-design and community-based participatory research gain traction in health and disability, the challenges and benefits of collaboratively conducting research need to be considered. Current literature supports using co-design to improve service quality and create more satisfactory services. However, while the ‘why’ of using co-design is well understood, there is limited literature on ‘how’ to co-design. We aimed to describe the application of co-design from start to finish within a specific case study and to reflect on the challenges and benefits created by specific process design choices. Methods: A telepractice re-design project has been a case study example of co-design. The co-design was co-facilitated by an embedded researcher and a peer researcher with lived experience of disability. Embedded in a Western Australian disability organisation, the co-design process included five workshops and a reflection session with a team of 10 lived experience and staff participants (referred to as co-designers) to produce a prototype telepractice model for testing. Results: The findings are divided into two components. The first describes the process design choices made throughout the co-design implementation case study. This is followed by a reflection on the benefits and challenges resulting from specific process design choices. The reflective process describes the co-designers’ perspective and the researcher’s and organisational experiences. Reflections of the co-designers include balancing idealism and realism, the value of small groups, ensuring accessibility and choice, and learning new skills and gaining new insights. The organisational and research-focused reflections included challenges between time for building relationships and the schedules of academic and organisational decision-making, the messiness of co-design juxtaposed with the processes of ethics applications, and the need for inclusive dissemination of findings. Conclusions: The authors advocate that co-design is a useful and outcome-generating methodology that proactively enables the inclusion of people with disability and service providers through community-based participatory research and action. Through our experiences, we recommend community-based participatory research, specifically co-design, to generate creative thinking and service design.

Background: Emergency telehealth has been used to improve access of patients residing in rural and remote areas to specialist care in the hope of mitigating the significant health disparities that they experience. Patient disposition decisions in rural and remote emergency departments (EDs) can be complex and largely dependent on the expertise and experience available at local (receiving-end) hospitals. Although there has been some synthesis of evidence of the effectiveness of emergency telehealth in clinical practice in rural and remote EDs for nonacute presentations, there has been limited evaluation of the influence of contextual factors such as clinical area and acuity of presentation on these findings. Objective: The aims of this systematic review are to examine the outcome measures used in studying the effectiveness of telehealth in rural and remote EDs and to analyze the clinical context in which these outcome measures were used and interpreted. Methods: The search strategy used Medical Subject Headings and equivalent lists of subject descriptors to find articles covering 4 key domains: telehealth or telemedicine, EDs, effectiveness, and rural and remote. Studies were selected using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes of Interest, and Study Design framework. This search strategy was applied to MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, ProQuest, and EconLit, as well as the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases (eg, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database) for the search period from January 1, 1990, to May 23, 2020. Qualitative synthesis was performed on the outcome measures used in the included studies, in particular the clinical contexts within which they were interpreted. Results: A total of 21 full-text articles were included for qualitative analysis. Telehealth use in rural and remote EDs demonstrated effectiveness in achieving improved or equivalent clinical effectiveness, appropriate care processes, and—depending on the context—improvement in speed of care, as well as favorable service use patterns. The definition of effectiveness varied across the clinical areas and contexts of the studies, and different measures have been used to affirm the safety and clinical effectiveness of telehealth in rural and remote EDs. The acuity of patient presentation emerged as a dominant consideration in the interpretation of interlinking time-sensitive clinical effectiveness and patient disposition measures such as transfer and discharge rates, local hospital admission, length of stay, and ED length of stay. These, together with clinical area and acuity of presentation, are the outcome determination criteria that emerged from this review. Conclusions: Emergency telehealth studies typically use multiple outcome measures to determine the effectiveness of the services. The outcome determination criteria that emerged from this analysis are useful when defining the favorable direction for each outcome measure of interest. The findings of this review have implications for emergency telehealth service design and policies. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019145903; https://tinyurl.com/ndmkr8ry

Purpose: – The aims of this paper are to explore the experiences of budget holders within the English National Health Service (NHS), in their attempts to implement programmes of disinvestment, and to consider factors which influence the success (or otherwise) of this activity.Design/methodology/approach: – Between 24 January and 15 March 2011 semi-structured, telephone interviews were conducted with representatives of 12 Primary Care Trusts in England. Interviews focussed on: understanding of the term “disinvestment”; current activities, and perceived determinants of successful disinvestment decision making and implementation. Data were organised into themes according to standard qualitative data coding practices.Findings: – Findings indicate that experiences of disinvestment are varied and that organisations are currently adopting a range of approaches. There are a number of apparently influential determinants of disinvestment which relate to both health system features and organisational characteristics. According to the experiences of the interviewees, many of the easier disinvestment options have now been taken and more ambitious plans, which require wider engagement and more thorough project management, will be required in the future.Research limitations/implications: – Findings from the research suggest that issues around understanding and usage of disinvestment terminology should be addressed and that a more in-depth and ethnographic research agenda will be of most value in moving forward both the theory and practice of disinvestment.Originality/value: – This research suggests that, in the English NHS at least, there is a disjuncture between common usage of the term “disinvestment” and the way that it has previously been understood by the wider research community. In addition to this, the research also highlights a broader range of potential determinants of disinvestment than are considered in the extant literature.