Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Background: More than half of all heart disease and stroke are attributable to hypertension, which is associated with approximately 10% of direct medical costs globally. Clinical trial evidence has demonstrated that the benefits of pharmacist intervention, including education, consultation and/or prescribing, can help to reduce blood pressure; a recent Canadian trial found an 18.3 mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure associated with pharmacist care and prescribing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of such an intervention in a Canadian setting. Methods: A Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed to extrapolate potential differences in long-term cardiovascular and renal disease outcomes, using Framingham risk equations and other published risk equations. A range of values for systolic blood pressure reduction was considered (7.6-18.3 mmHg) to reflect the range of potential interventions and available evidence. The model incorporated health outcomes, costs and quality of life to estimate an overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Costs considered included direct medical costs as well as the costs associated with implementing the pharmacist intervention strategy. Results: For a systolic blood pressure reduction of 18.3 mmHg, the estimated impact is 0.21 fewer cardiovascular events per person and, discounted at 5% per year, 0.3 additional life-years, 0.4 additional quality-adjusted life-years and $6,364 cost savings over a lifetime. Thus, the intervention is economically dominant, being both more effective and cost-saving relative to usual care. Discussion: Across a range of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of key parameters and assumptions, pharmacist intervention remained both effective and cost-saving. Conclusion: Comprehensive pharmacist care of hypertension, including patient education and prescribing, has the potential to offer both health benefits and cost savings to Canadians and, as such, has important public health implications.

Objective: Conventionally, optimal treatment strategies for breast cancer have been largely determined by physicians, with a scant understanding of patients’ treatment values and preferences. Incorporating patient preferences in the decision-making process for breast cancer treatment is gaining recognition and can potentially improve treatment outcomes and compliance. This scoping review aims to synthesize evidence on the key determinants that are most valued by breast cancer patients when deciding on their treatment options. Methods: We searched three electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and CINAHL Plus) utilizing a systematic scoping review method. Two reviewers independently screened, applied inclusion criteria, reviewed, and synthesized findings. A mixed-method narrative approach combining the inductive thematic analysis and content analysis methodologies was used to synthesize and summarize the findings. Results: The review included 22 studies, leading to the conceptualization of 5 overarching themes and 17 sub-themes. Among these, the most frequently cited theme was treatment benefits, followed by treatment-related process, treatment-related risk, quality of life, and cost of treatment. Women with breast cancer highly value treatments that offer good effectiveness, prolong survival, prevent recurrence, and maintain quality of life. Patient concerns include treatment-related side effects, safety, the risk of secondary cancer, and direct or indirect out-of-pocket costs. Additionally, patients also consider treatment duration, mode of administration, physician recommendation, and treatment availability and accessibility when deciding on their preferred treatment. Conclusion: The evidence synthesized in this review offers insights into refining breast cancer treatment strategies to align more closely with patient values. Recognizing and integrating patient perspectives in breast cancer care could potentially lead to improved treatment outcomes, enhanced patient compliance, and more personalized care. Healthcare professionals are encouraged to incorporate these key determinants in their treatment decision-making processes, aiming to deliver a patient-centered care that aligns with the unique preferences and values of each patient. Plain Language Summary: Breast cancer is a significant health concern, and treatment decisions have traditionally driven by physicians, often without due consideration for patients’ preferences in their treatment choices. This scoping review aimed to explore and summarize what matters most to breast cancer patients when deciding on their treatment options. We found five main themes that were important to patients:Effectiveness: Patients highly value treatments that are effective in fighting cancer, prolonging survival, and preventing recurrence.Treatment-related process: The length of treatment and availability of different therapies influenced patients’ choices. Patients trust their doctors’ expertise but also value being involved in the decision-making process to have their preferences considered.Side Effects and Safety: Concerns about treatment-related side effects and the risk of secondary cancer were critical factors in decision-making.Quality of Life: Maintaining a good quality of life during treatment is crucial for patients.Financial Burden: The additional direct and indirect out-of-pocket costs of treatment were important considerations for patients. Understanding patients’ preferences is vital in developing personalized treatments that align with their values. Healthcare professionals need to communicate effectively with patients and involve them in the decision-making process. Patient decision aids and tailored financial assistance programs could also be helpful. Further research is needed to identify effective strategies to tailor treatments to meet patients’ preferences. Overall, this review sheds light on what matters most to breast cancer patients, empowering them to be more active participants in their treatment decisions and potentially improving treatment outcomes and overall well-being.

Food allergen labeling is an important tool to reduce risk of exposure and prevent anaphylaxis for individuals with food allergies. Health Canada released a Canadian food allergen labeling regulation (2008) and subsequent update (2012) suggesting that research is needed to guide further iterations of the regulation to improve food allergen labeling and reduce risk of exposure. The primary objective of this study was to examine consumer preferences in food labeling for allergy avoidance and anaphylaxis prevention. A secondary objective was to identify whether different subgroups within the consumer population emerged. A discrete choice experiment using a fractional factorial design divided into ten different versions with 18 choice-sets per version was developed to examine consumer preferences for different attributes of food labeling. Three distinct subgroups of Canadian consumers with different allergen considerations and food allergen labeling needs were identified. Overall, preferences for standardized precautionary and safety symbols at little or no increased cost emerged. While three distinct groups with different preferences were identified, in general the results revealed that the current Canadian food allergen labeling regulation can be improved by enforcing the use of standardized precautionary and safety symbols and educating the public on the use of these symbols.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health state utility value (HSUV) measurements are vital components of healthcare clinical and economic evaluations. Accurate measurement of HSUV and HRQoL require validated instruments. The 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) is one of few instruments that can evaluate both HRQoL and HSUV, but its validity has not been assessed in people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in east Africa, where the burden of HIV is high. This cross-sectional study used baseline data from a randomized trial involving PLWHA in Kenya. Data included responses from a translated and adapted SF-12 survey as well as key demographic and clinical data. Construct validity of the survey was examined by testing the SF-12’s ability to distinguish between groups known in advance to have differences in their health based on their disease severity. We classified disease severity based on established definitions from the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) and WHO, as well as a previously studied viral load threshold. T-tests and ANOVA were used to test for differences in HRQoL and HSUV scores. Area under the receive operator curve (AUC) was used to test the discriminative ability of the HRQoL and HSUV instruments. Differences in physical component scores met the minimum clinically important difference among participants with more advanced HIV when defined by CD4 count (4.3 units) and WHO criteria (compared to stage 1, stages 2, 3 and 4 were 2.0, 7.2 and 9.8 units lower respectively). Mental score differences met the minimum clinically important difference between WHO stage 1 and stage 4 patients (4.4). Differences in the HSUV were statistically lower in more advanced HIV by all three definitions of severity. The AUC showed poor to weak discriminatory ability in most analyses, but had fair discriminatory ability between WHO clinical stage 1 and clinical stage 4 individuals (AUC = 0.71). Our findings suggest that the Kiswahili translated and adapted version of the SF-12 could be used as an assessment tool for physical health, mental health and HSUV for Kiswahili-speaking PLHWA. Clinical trials.gov identifier: NCT00830622 . Registered 26 January 2009.

Background: Challenges to the provision of health care are occurring internationally and are expected to increase in the future, further increasing health spending. As pharmacist roles are evolving and expanding internationally to provide individualised pharmaceutical care it is important to assess the cost-effectiveness of these services. Objectives: To systematically synthesise the international literature regarding published economic evaluations of pharmacy services to assess their cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes. Methods: A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacy services was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, IPA and online journals with search functions likely to publish economic evaluations of pharmacy services. Data were extracted regarding the interventions, the time horizon, the outcomes and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Studies’ quality of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) statement. Results: Seventy-five studies were included in the systematic review, including 67 cost-effectiveness analyses, 6 cost-benefit analyses and 2 cost-consequence analyses. Of these, 57 were either dominant or cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay threshold of NZ$46 645 per QALY. A further 11 studies’ cost-effectiveness were unable to be evaluated. Interventions considered to be most cost-effective included pharmacist medication reviews, pharmacist adherence strategies and pharmacist management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension and warfarin/INR monitoring. The quality of reporting of studies differed with no studies reporting all 28 items of the CHEERS statement. Conclusions: There is strong economic evidence to support investment in extended pharmacist services, particularly those focussed on long-term chronic health conditions.