Home  About us  Contact
 

Evaluation Literature (evaluation + literature)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences75%

Selected Abstracts

Diabetic retinopathy screening: a systematic review of the economic evidence

DIABETIC MEDICINE, Issue 3 2010
S. Jones
Diabet. Med. 27, 249,256 (2010) Abstract This paper systematically reviews the published literature on the economic evidence of diabetic retinopathy screening. Twenty-nine electronic databases were searched for studies published between 1998 and 2008. Internet searches were carried out and reference lists of key studies were hand searched for relevant articles. The key search terms used were ,diabetic retinopathy', ,screening', ,economic' and ,cost'. The search identified 416 papers of which 21 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, comprising nine cost-effectiveness studies, one cost analysis, one cost-minimization analysis, four cost,utility analyses and six reviews. Eleven of the included studies used economic modelling techniques and/or computer simulation to assess screening strategies. To date, the economic evaluation literature on diabetic retinopathy screening has focused on four key questions: the overall cost-effectiveness of ophthalmic care; the cost-effectiveness of systematic vs. opportunistic screening; how screening should be organized and delivered; and how often people should be screened. Systematic screening for diabetic retinopathy is cost-effective in terms of sight years preserved compared with no screening. Digital photography with telemedicine links has the potential to deliver cost-effective, accessible screening to rural, remote and hard-to-reach populations. Variation in compliance rates, age of onset of diabetes, glycaemic control and screening sensitivities influence the cost-effectiveness of screening programmes and are important sources of uncertainty in relation to the issue of optimal screening intervals. There is controversy in relation to the economic evidence on optimal screening intervals. Further research is needed to address the issue of optimal screening interval, the opportunities for targeted screening to reflect relative risk and the effect of different screening intervals on attendance or compliance by patients. [source]

Valuing avoided morbidity using meta-regression analysis: what can health status measures and QALYs tell us about WTP?

HEALTH ECONOMICS, Issue 8 2006
George Van Houtven
Abstract Many economists argue that willingness-to-pay (WTP) measures are most appropriate for assessing the welfare effects of health changes. Nevertheless, the health evaluation literature is still dominated by studies estimating nonmonetary health status measures (HSMs), which are often used to assess changes in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Using meta-regression analysis, this paper combines results from both WTP and HSM studies applied to acute morbidity, and it tests whether a systematic relationship exists between HSM and WTP estimates. We analyze over 230 WTP estimates from 17 different studies and find evidence that QALY-based estimates of illness severity , as measured by the Quality of Well-Being (QWB) Scale , are significant factors in explaining variation in WTP, as are changes in the duration of illness and the average income and age of the study populations. In addition, we test and reject the assumption of a constant WTP per QALY gain. We also demonstrate how the estimated meta-regression equations can serve as benefit transfer functions for policy analysis. By specifying the change in duration and severity of the acute illness and the characteristics of the affected population, we apply the regression functions to predict average WTP per case avoided. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Financial Education and Counseling,Still Holding Promise

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, Issue 3 2010
J. MICHAEL COLLINS
This article reviews the evaluation literature on financial education and counseling for adults in order to synthesize implications for research and practice. Most evaluations report positive impacts, but the findings are often small when compared with valid comparison groups. Many evaluations use self-reported measures, measure outcomes over short time periods and cannot rule out selection bias due to nonrandomized designs, all of which may bias results. Although future research and practice in this field hold promise, more attention to theory-based evaluations and further investment in randomized field experiments may be fruitful. [source]

A systematic review of evaluation in formal continuing medical education

THE JOURNAL OF CONTINUING EDUCATION IN THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, Issue 1 2007
Jing Tian MD
Abstract Introduction: Physicians spend a considerable amount of time in Continuing Medical Education (CME) to maintain their medical licenses. CME evaluation studies vary greatly in evaluation methods, levels of evaluation, and length of follow-up. Standards for CME evaluation are needed to enable comparison among different studies and to detect factors influencing CME evaluation. Methods: A review of the CME evaluation literature was conducted on primary research studies published from January 2000 to January 2006. Studies assessing only satisfaction with CME were excluded, as were studies where fewer than 50% of the participants were practicing physicians. Thirty-two studies were included in the analyses. Determinations were made about evaluation methods, outcome measures, and follow-up assessment. Results: Only 2 of 32 reviewed studies addressed all evaluation levels: physician changes in knowledge and attitudes (level 2), practices (level 3), and improved patient health status (level 4). None of the studies using self-developed instruments (n = 10) provided reliability and validity information. Only 6 studies used validated scales. Twenty studies had a follow-up period of 6 months or less, and 11 had a follow-up period between 1 and 2 years. Discussion: A gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of CME would include assessment of all 4 levels of evaluation. A valid, reliable, and adaptable CME evaluation questionnaire addressing variables in the second level is needed to allow comparison of effectiveness across CME interventions. A minimum 1-year postintervention follow-up period may also be indicated to investigate the sustainability of intervention outcomes. [source]