...
首页> 外文期刊>Cost Effectiveness Resource Allocation >Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care
【24h】

Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care

机译:药剂师LED轻微疾病服务的成本效用与通常的药剂师护理相比

获取原文
           

摘要

Background:A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) performed from July 2018 to March 2019 demonstrated the clinical impact of a community pharmacist delivered minor ailment service (MAS) compared with usual pharmacist care (UC).?MAS consisted of a technology-based face-to-face consultation delivered by trained community pharmacists. The consultation was guided by clinical pathways for assessment and management, and communication systems, collaboratively agreed with general practitioners. MAS pharmacists were trained and provided monthly practice support by a practice change facilitator. The objective of this study was to assess the cost utility of MAS, compared to UC.Methods:Participants recruited were adult patients with symptoms suggestive of a minor ailment condition, from community pharmacies located in Western Sydney. Patients received MAS (intervention) or UC (control) and were followed-up by telephone 14-days following consultation with the pharmacist. A cost utility analysis was conducted alongside the cRCT. Transition probabilities and costs were directly derived from cRCT study data. Utility values were not available from the cRCT, hence we relied on utility values reported in the published literature which were used to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), using the area under the curve method. A decision tree model was used to capture the decision problem, considering a societal perspective and a 14-day time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed robustness and uncertainty of results, respectively.Results:Patients (n?=?894) were recruited from 30 pharmacies and 82% (n?=?732) responded to follow-up. On average, MAS was more costly but also more effective (in terms of symptom resolution and QALY gains) compared to UC. MAS patients (n?=?524) gained an additional 0.003 QALYs at an incremental cost of $7.14 (Australian dollars), compared to UC (n?=?370) which resulted in an ICER of $2277 (95% CI $681.49-3811.22) per QALY.Conclusion:Economic findings suggest that implementation of MAS within the Australian context is cost effective.Trial registration Registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and allocated the ACTRN: ACTRN12618000286246. Registered on 23 February 2018.? The Author(s) 2020.
机译:背景:2018年7月至2019年3月执行的集群随机对照试验(CRCT)显示了社区药剂师交付了轻微疾病服务(MAS)的临床影响,与通常的药剂师护理(UC)相比。?MAS由基于技术的脸部组成 - 训练有素的社区药剂师交付的磋商。该咨询是由评估和管理的临床途径指导,以及与全科医生协同一致的沟通系统。 MAS药剂师受过培训,并通过实践变更促进者提供每月练习支持。本研究的目的是评估MAS的成本效用,与UC.Methods相比:参与者招募的是成年患者患有暗示悉尼西部的社区药房的症状症状。患者接受了MAS(干预)或UC(控制),并通过与药剂师咨询后的14天通过电话随访。成本实用程序分析与CRCT一起进行。过渡概率和成本直接来自CRCT研究数据。 CRCT的实用价值不可用,因此我们依赖于公布文献中报告的实用价值,用于计算曲线方法下的区域的质量调整的寿命年(QALYS)。考虑到社会观点和14天的时间地平线,使用决策树模型来捕捉决策问题。确定性和概率敏感性分析分别评估结果的鲁棒性和不确定性。结果:患者(n?= 1094)是从30个药房招募的,82%(n?=Δ732)回应后续行动。与UC相比,平均而言,MAS更昂贵,但也更有效(在症状分辨率和QALY提升方面)。与UC(n?= 370)相比,MAS患者(n?= 524)以7.14美元的增量成本增加了0.003qalys,以7.14美元(澳大利亚元),导致了2277美元的标语(95%CI $ 681.49-3811.22)每个突出者。结论:经济调查结果表明,澳大利亚背景下的MAS实施是成本效益的。注册与澳大利亚新西兰临床试验登记册(ANZCTR),并分配了ACTRN:ACTRN12618000286246。 2018年2月23日注册。作者2020年。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号