The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the costing methodological approaches adopted by published cost-of-illness (COI) studies. A systematic review was performed to identify cost-of-illness studies of heart failure published between January 2003 and September 2015 via computerized databases such as Pubmed, Wiley Online, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Costs reported in the original studies were converted to 2014 international dollars (Int$). Thirty five out of 4972 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nineteen out of the 35 studies reported the costs as annual cost per patient, ranging from Int$ 908.00 to Int$ 84,434.00, while nine studies reported costs as per hospitalization, ranging from Int$ 3780.00 to Int$ 34,233.00. Cost of heart failure increased as condition of heart failure worsened from New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I to NYHA class IV. Hospitalization cost was found to be the main cost driver to the total health care cost. The annual cost of heart failure ranges from Int$ 908 to Int$ 40,971 per patient. The reported cost estimates were inconsistent across the COI studies, mainly due to the variation in term of methodological approaches such as disease definition, epidemiological approach of study, study perspective, cost disaggregation, estimation of resource utilization, valuation of unit cost components, and data sources used. Such variation will affect the reliability, consistency, validity, and relevance of the cost estimates across studies.

No abstract

Current evidence indicates that insulin analogues are cost effective for T1DM; however, evidence for their use in T2DM is not convincing. Additional evidence regarding compliance and efficacy is required to support the broader use of long-acting and biphasic insulin analogues in T2DM. The value of insulin analogues depends strongly on reductions in hypoglycaemia event rates and its efficacy in lowering glycated haemoglobin (HbA).

Background Combating viral outbreaks extends beyond biomedical and clinical approaches; thus, public health prevention measures are equally important. Public engagement in preventive efforts can be viewed as the social responsibility of individuals in controlling an infectious disease and are subjected to change due to human behaviour. Understanding individuals’ perception of social responsibility is crucial and is not yet explored extensively in the academic literature. We adopted the grounded theory method to develop an explanatory substantive theory to illustrate the process of how individual responded to the outbreak from a social responsibility perspective. Methods In-depth interviews were conducted among 23 Malaysians either through telephone or face-to-face depending on the participant’s preference. Both purposive and theoretical sampling were used. Participants were invited to share their understanding, perceptions and activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. They were further probed about their perceptions on complying with the public health interventions imposed by the authorities. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed via open coding, focus coding and theoretical coding, facilitated by memoing, sketching and modelling. Results Study findings showed that, social responsibility is perceived within its role, the perceived societal role responsibility. In a particular context, an individual assumed only one of the many expected social roles with their perceived circle of responsibility. Individuals negotiated their actions from this perspective, after considering the perceived risk during the outbreak. The four types of behaviour depicted in the matrix diagram facilitate the understanding of the abstract concept of negotiation in the human decision-making process, and provide the spectrum of different behaviour in relation to public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions Our study adopted the grounded theory approach to develop a theoretical model that illustrates how individual response to COVID-19 preventive measures is determined by the negotiation between perceived societal role responsibility and perceived infection risk. This substantive theoretical model is abstract, thus has relevance for adoption within similar context of an outbreak.

No abstract