Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Short stay (admission, surgery, and discharge the same day or within 24 hours) following breast cancer surgery is part of an established care protocol but as yet not well implemented in Europe. Alongside a before-after multi-centre implementation study, an economic evaluation was performed exploring the cost-effectiveness of a short stay programme (SSP) versus care as usual (CAU).
Material And Methods: In the implementation study, 324 patients were included. In the economic evaluation a societal perspective was applied with a six week time horizon. Cost data were obtained from Case Record Forms and cost diaries. Effectiveness was assessed by calculating Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), using the EuroQol-5D. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the incremental costs per QALY.
Results: Mean societal costs decreased by euro955,- (95% CI euro - 2104,- to euro157,-) for patients in SSP (n=127) compared with CAU (n=135). Mean healthcare costs differed euro883,- (95% CI euro - 1560,- to euro870,-) in favour of SSP. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio could not be calculated due to similar effectiveness for both groups, i.e. the difference in QALYs was zero. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the probability that SSP was more cost-effective than CAU was over 90% in the base-case analysis.
Discussion: A short stay programme as implemented is cost-effective compared with care as usual. In achieving good and more efficient quality of care, larger scale implementation is warranted.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02841861003610192 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!