This study aims to provide a rigorous estimate of the worldwide costs of visual impairment (VI), and the associated health burden. The study used a prevalence-based model. Prevalence rates for mild VI (visual acuity (VA) worse than 6/12 but not worse than 6/18), moderate VI (VA worse than 6/18 but not worse than 6/60) and blindness (VA worse than 6/60) were applied to population forecasts for each World Health Organisation (WHO) subregion. The limited available country cost data were extrapolated between subregions using economic and population health indicators. Age and gender subgroup population numbers were derived from United Nations' data. Costs and the health burden of VI were estimated for each world subregion using published disease prevalence rates, health care expenditures and other economic data. The study includes direct health care costs, indirect costs and the health burden of VI. The total cost of VI globally was estimated at $3 trillion in 2010, of which $2.3 trillion was direct health costs. This burden is projected to increase by approximately 20% by 2020. VI is associated with a considerable disease burden. Unless steps are taken to reduce prevalence through prevention and treatment, this burden will increase alongside global population growth.

Background Health technology assessment has been increasingly used in China, having been legally mandated in 2019, to inform reimbursement decisions and price negotiations between the National Healthcare Security Administration and pharmaceutical companies around the price of new pharmaceuticals. The criteria currently used to judge cost-effectiveness and inform pricing negotiations, 3x GDP per capita, is based on the rule of thumb previously recommended by the World Health Organization rather than an estimate based on an empirical assessment of health opportunity costs.Objective The objective of this study was to inform a cost-effectiveness threshold for health technology assessment in China that accounts for health opportunity cost. MethodsThe elasticity of health outcomes with respect to health expenditure was estimated using variations across 30 provincial-level administrative divisions in 2017 controlling for a range of other factors and using an instrumental variable approach to account for endogeneity to assess robustness of results. The estimated elasticity was then used to calculate the cost per DALY averted by variations in Chinese health expenditure at the margin. ResultsThe range of estimates from this study, 27,923-52,247 (2017 RMB) (central estimate 37,446) per DALY averted or 47-88% of GDP per capita (central estimate 63%), shows that a cost per DALY averted cost-effectiveness threshold that reflects health opportunity costs is below 1x GDP per capita. ConclusionOur results suggest that the current cost-effectiveness threshold used in China is too high; continuing to use it risks decisions that reduce overall population health. Key points for decision makers• Health technology assessment has been increasingly used in China and the criteria currently used to judge costeffectiveness and inform pricing negotiations does not reflect an evidence-based assessment of health opportunity costs.• This article provides the first estimate of the marginal productivity of health expenditure in China which can be used to inform the health opportunity cost of funding a new technology.• Our central estimate 37,446 (2017 RMB) or 63% of GDP per capita shows that a cost per DALY averted costeffectiveness threshold that reflects health opportunity costs would be below 1x GDP per capita, suggesting that decisions made on the basis of the currently used 3x GDP per capita threshold risk resulting in net losses in overall population health.

IntroductionValue-based healthcare delivery models have emerged to address the unprecedented pressure on long-term health system performance and sustainability and to respond to the changing needs and expectations of patients. Implementing and scaling the benefits from these care delivery models to achieve large-system transformation are challenging and require consideration of complexity and context. Realist studies enable researchers to explore factors beyond ‘what works’ towards more nuanced understanding of ‘what tends to work for whom under which circumstances’. This research proposes a realist study of the implementation approach for seven large-system, value-based healthcare initiatives in New South Wales, Australia, to elucidate how different implementation strategies and processes stimulate the uptake, adoption, fidelity and adherence of initiatives to achieve sustainable impacts across a variety of contexts.Methods and analysisThis exploratory, sequential, mixed methods realist study followed RAMESES II (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) reporting standards for realist studies. Stage 1 will formulate initial programme theories from review of existing literature, analysis of programme documents and qualitative interviews with programme designers, implementation support staff and evaluators. Stage 2 envisages testing and refining these hypothesised programme theories through qualitative interviews with local hospital network staff running initiatives, and analyses of quantitative data from the programme evaluation, hospital administrative systems and an implementation outcome survey. Stage 3 proposes to produce generalisable middle-range theories by synthesising data from context–mechanism–outcome configurations across initiatives. Qualitative data will be analysed retroductively and quantitative data will be analysed to identify relationships between the implementation strategies and processes, and implementation and programme outcomes. Mixed methods triangulation will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by Macquarie University (Project ID 23816) and Hunter New England (Project ID 2020/ETH02186) Human Research Ethics Committees. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Results will be fed back to partner organisations and roundtable discussions with other health jurisdictions will be held, to share learnings.

Background: Despite increasing investment in suicide prevention, Australian suicide rates have increased steadily in the past decade. In response to growing evidence for multicomponent intervention models for reducing suicide, the LifeSpan model has been developed as the first multicomponent, evidence-based, system-wide approach to suicide prevention in Australia. The LifeSpan model consists of nine evidence-based strategies. These include indicated, selective and universal interventions which are delivered simultaneously to community and healthcare systems over a 2-year implementation period. This study will evaluate the effectiveness of the LifeSpan model in reducing suicide attempts and suicide deaths in four geographically defined regions in New South Wales, Australia. Methods: We outline the protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial. Following a 6-month transition phase, the trial sites will move to the 2-year active implementation phase in 4-monthly intervals with evaluation extending a minimum of 24 months after establishment of the full active period. Analysis will be undertaken of the change attributable to the invention across the four sites. The primary outcome for the study is the rate of attempted suicide in the regions involved. Rate of suicide deaths within each site is a secondary outcome. Discussion: If proven effective, the LifeSpan model for suicide prevention could be more widely delivered in Australian communities, providing a valuable new approach to tackle rising suicide rates. LifeSpan has the potential to significantly contribute to the mental health of Australians by improving help-seeking for suicide, facilitating early detection, and improving aftercare to reduce re-attempts. The findings from this research should also contribute to the evidence base for multilevel suicide prevention programs internationally.

No abstract