2013
DOI: 10.1177/1355819613508176
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Treatment for stable HIV patients in England: can we increase efficiency and improve patient care?

Abstract: Different appointment schedules and drug supply options should be considered for stable HIV patients based on efficiency gains. However, this should be assessed for individual patients to meet their needs, especially around adherence and patient support.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…No study has previously evaluated the economic impact of HDD or MOP from the HIV outpatient perspective; most of the published studies in other chronic pathologies have been carried out from the perspective of the service provider or payer and suggest that these drug-dispensing systems do not provide a clear economic benefit 11,40 or result in a marginal opportunity cost. 8,[41][42][43][44] Conversely, our study results show that the travel every month or every 2 months to the HPS for face-to-face consultation and drug dispensing represents an important expense that the patient assumes and is the cause of a loss of relevant productivity throughout the year and demonstrate a clear benefit at this level; unfortunately, our results cannot be compared with those of other studies, since these exact parameters have not been previously analyzed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…No study has previously evaluated the economic impact of HDD or MOP from the HIV outpatient perspective; most of the published studies in other chronic pathologies have been carried out from the perspective of the service provider or payer and suggest that these drug-dispensing systems do not provide a clear economic benefit 11,40 or result in a marginal opportunity cost. 8,[41][42][43][44] Conversely, our study results show that the travel every month or every 2 months to the HPS for face-to-face consultation and drug dispensing represents an important expense that the patient assumes and is the cause of a loss of relevant productivity throughout the year and demonstrate a clear benefit at this level; unfortunately, our results cannot be compared with those of other studies, since these exact parameters have not been previously analyzed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…For example, TasP implementation requires frequent clinical contact and regular monitoring of patients’ CD4 counts and viral loads. This is at odds with arms-length models for clinical management of stable patient being developed to ease the burden on clinical resources (Adams, Ogden, Erlich, & Hay, 2013 ; Asboe et al, 2012 ). Moreover, there are questions about the abilities of the NHS to meet treatment budgets in the longer term.…”
Section: Domain 5: Economic Considerations and Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%