ObjectivesPrecision medicine (PM) aims to improve patient outcomes by stratifying or individualizing diagnosis and treatment decisions. Previous reviews found inconclusive evidence as to the cost-effectiveness of PM. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe current research findings on the cost-effectiveness of PM and to identify characteristics of cost-effective interventions. MethodsWe searched PubMed with a combination of terms related to PM and economic evaluations and included studies published between 2014 and 2017. ResultsA total of 83 articles were included, of which two-thirds were published in Europe and the USA. The majority of studies concluded that the PM intervention was at least cost-effective compared to usual care. However, the willingness-to-pay thresholds varied widely. Key factors influencing cost-effectiveness included the prevalence of the genetic condition in the target population, costs of genetic testing and companion treatment and the probability of complications or mortality.ConclusionsThis review may help inform decisions about reimbursement, research and development of PM interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00038-019-01298-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundED overcrowding represents a significant public health problem in developed countries. Frequent users of the emergency departments (FUEDs; reporting 5 or more ED visits in the past year) are often affected by medical, psychological, social, and substance use problems and account for a disproportionately high number of ED visits. Past research indicates that case management (CM) interventions are a promising way to reduce ED overcrowding and improve FUEDs’ quality of life. There is, however, very limited knowledge about how to disseminate and implement this intervention on a large scale to diverse clinical settings, including community hospitals and non-academic centers. This paper describes the protocol of a research project aiming to implement a CM intervention tailored to FUEDs in the public hospitals with ED in the French-speaking region of Switzerland and evaluate both the implementation process and effectiveness of the CM intervention.MethodsThis research project uses a hybrid study design assessing both implementation and clinical outcomes. The implementation part of the study uses mixed methods a) to describe quantitatively and qualitatively factors that influence the implementation process, and b) to examine implementation effectiveness. The clinical part of the study uses a within-subject design (pre-post intervention) to evaluate participants’ trajectories on clinical variables (e.g., quality of life, ED use) after receiving the CM intervention. We designed the study based on two implementation science frameworks. The Generic Implementation Framework guided the overall research protocol design, whereas the RE-AIM (reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation and maintenance) framework guided the implementation and effectiveness evaluations.DiscussionThis research project will contribute to implementation science by providing key insights into the processes of implementing CM into broader practice. This research project is also likely to have both clinical and public health implications.Trial registrationNCT03641274, Registered 20 August 2018.

No abstract

Background Frequent users of emergency departments (FUEDs) (≥5 ED visits/year) represent a vulnerable population with complex needs accounting for a significant number of emergency department (ED) consultations, thus contributing to EDs overcrowding. Research exploring ED staff perceptions of FUEDs is scarce. Objectives The current study aimed to evaluate in ED staff a) the extent to which FUEDs are perceived as an issue; b) their perceived levels of knowledge and understanding of FUEDs; c) levels of perceived usefulness of case management (CM) and interest in implementing this intervention in their ED service. Methods Head physicians of the EDs at all public hospitals in Switzerland (of various level of specialization) were sent a 19-item web-based survey, pilot tested prior to its dissemination. The head physicians were asked to forward the survey to ED staff members from different health professional backgrounds. Results The hospital response rate was 81% (85/106). The exploitable hospital response rate was 71% (75/106 hospitals) including 208 responding health professionals. Issues and difficulties around FUEDs were perceived as important by 64% of respondents. The perceived frequency of being confronted with FUEDs was higher among nurses in more specialized EDs. In total, 64% of respondents felt poorly informed about FUEDs, nurses feeling less informed than physicians. The understanding of FUEDs was lower in the French-Italian-speaking parts (FISP) of Switzerland than in the German-speaking part. Eighty-one percent of respondents had no precise knowledge of FUED-related interventions. The perceived usefulness of CM interventions after receiving explanations about it was high (92%). However, the overall level of interest for CM implementation was 59%. The interest in CM by physicians was low across all regions and ED categories. Nurses, on the other hand, showed more interest, especially those in EDs of high specialization. Conclusions The majority of ED staff reported being confronted with FUEDs on a regular basis. Staff perceived FUEDs as a vulnerable population, yet, they felt poorly informed about how to manage the issue. The majority of ED staff thought a CM intervention would be useful for FUEDs, however there appears to be a gap in their desire or willingness to implement such interventions.