Diagnosis and risk Management in primary care: Words That Count, Numbers That Speak

Reid, Jenny; Slater, Alexander David; Ball, Alasdair

doi:10.3399/bjgp13x664351

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A large proportion of facility visits are never linked to a specific diagnosis, but are based on symptoms that are assessed, managed and often resolved without a diagnosis ever being made. [24][25][26][27] These services are (or are often considered to be) so widely available in wellresourced settings that they do not require a 'decision' on inclusion, and they are rarely represented in CEA studies. Even for specific conditions, there is a mismatch between burden of disease and volume of CEA studies published (see figure 5 below).…”

Section: Cea and Integration: The Whole And The Sum Of Its Partsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building implementable packages for universal health coverage

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since no country or health system can provide every possible health service to everyone who might benefit, the prioritisation of a defined subset of services for universal availability is intrinsic to universal health coverage (UHC). Creating a package of priority services for UHC, however, does not in itself benefit a population—packages have impact only through implementation. There are inherent tensions between the way services are formulated to facilitate criteria-driven prioritisation and the formulations that facilitate implementation, and service delivery considerations are rarely well incorporated into package development. Countries face substantial challenges bridging from a list of services in a package to the elements needed to get services to people. The failure to incorporate delivery considerations already at the prioritisation and design stage can result in packages that undermine the goals that countries have for service delivery. Based on a range of country experiences, we discuss specific choices about package structure and content and summarise some ideas on how to build more implementable packages of services for UHC, arguing that well-designed packages can support countries to bridge effectively from intent to implementation.

show abstract

Section: Cea and Integration: The Whole And The Sum Of Its Partsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building implementable packages for universal health coverage

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A method for early evaluation of a recently introduced technology by deriving a comparative group from existing clinical data: a case study in external support of the Marfan aortic root

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveDuring the early phase of evaluation of a new intervention, data exist for present practice. The authors propose a method of constructing a fair comparator group using these data. In this case study, the authors use the example of external aortic root support, a novel alternative to aortic root replacement.DesignA matched comparison group, of similar age, aortic size and aortic valve function to those having the novel intervention, was constructed, by minimization, from among patients having conventional aortic root replacement in other hospitals during the same time frame.SettingThree cardiac surgical units in England.PatientsThe first 20 patients, aged 16–58 years with aortic root diameters of 40–54 mm, having external support surgery were compared with 20 patients, aged 18–63 years and aortic root diameters of 38–58 mm, who had conventional aortic root replacement, between May 2004 and December 2009.InterventionsA pliant external mesh sleeve, customised by computer-aided design, encloses the whole of the ascending aorta. The comparator group had conventional aortic root replacement, 16 valve-sparing and four with composite valved grafts.Main outcome measuresDuration of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), myocardial ischaemic time, blood loss and transfusion of blood, platelets and clotting factors.ResultsComparing total root replacement and customised aortic root support surgery: CPB (median (range)) was 134 (52–316) versus 0 (0–20) min; myocardial ischaemia 114 (41–250) versus 0 (0–0) min; 4 h blood loss was 218 (85–735) versus 50 (25–400) ml; and 9/18 had blood transfusion, 9/18 platelets and 12/18 fresh frozen plasma after root replacement versus 1/20, 0/20 and 0/20, respectively, for the novel surgery.ConclusionsAvoidance or large reductions in CPB, myocardial ischaemia and blood product usage were achieved with the novel surgery. These data are of use in decision analysis and health economic evaluation and are available early in evaluation before randomised trial data are available.

show abstract

History of diagnosis of cardiovascular diseases

Lubinza¹

2013

DES Med Stu Jrnl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnosis and risk Management in primary care: Words That Count, Numbers That Speak

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

Building implementable packages for universal health coverage

Building implementable packages for universal health coverage

A method for early evaluation of a recently introduced technology by deriving a comparative group from existing clinical data: a case study in external support of the Marfan aortic root

History of diagnosis of cardiovascular diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About