Economic evaluation of occupational health and safety programmes in health care

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based resource allocation in the public health care sector requires reliable economic evaluations that are different from those needed in the commercial sector.

AIMS

To describe a framework for conducting economic evaluations of occupational health and safety (OHS) programmes in health care developed with sector stakeholders. To define key resources and outcomes to be considered in economic evaluations of OHS programmes and to integrate these into a comprehensive framework.

METHODS

Participatory action research supported by mixed qualitative and quantitative methods, including a multi-stakeholder working group, 25 key informant interviews, a 41-member Delphi panel and structured nominal group discussions.

RESULTS

We found three resources had top priority: OHS staff time, training the workers and programme planning, promotion and evaluation. Similarly, five outcomes had top priority: number of injuries, safety climate, job satisfaction, quality of care and work days lost. The resulting framework was built around seven principles of good practice that stakeholders can use to assist them in conducting economic evaluations of OHS programmes.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a framework resulting from this participatory action research approach may increase the quality of economic evaluations of OHS programmes and facilitate programme comparisons for evidence-based resource allocation decisions. The principles may be applicable to other service sectors funded from general taxes and more broadly to economic evaluations of OHS programmes in general.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long term effects of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches of Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to February 2014, supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and forward citation tracking of included trials.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials published in full; participants with low back pain for more than three months; multidisciplinary rehabilitation involved a physical component and one or both of a psychological component or a social or work targeted component; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was delivered by healthcare professionals from at least two different professional backgrounds; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was compared with a non- multidisciplinary intervention.

RESULTS

Forty one trials included a total of 6858 participants with a mean duration of pain of more than one year who often had failed previous treatment. Sixteen trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.37; equivalent to 0.5 points in a 10 point pain scale) and disability (0.23, 0.06 to 0.40; equivalent to 1.5 points in a 24 point Roland-Morris index) compared with usual care. Nineteen trials provided low quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.51, -0.01 to 1.04) and disability (0.68, 0.16 to 1.19) compared with physical treatments, but significant statistical heterogeneity across trials was present. Eight trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves the odds of being at work one year after intervention (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.53) compared with physical treatments. Seven trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation does not improve the odds of being at work (odds ratio 1.04, 0.73 to 1.47) compared with usual care. Two trials that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation with surgery found little difference in outcomes and an increased risk of adverse events with surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation interventions were more effective than usual care (moderate quality evidence) and physical treatments (low quality evidence) in decreasing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. For work outcomes, multidisciplinary rehabilitation seems to be more effective than physical treatment but not more effective than usual care.

The role of Product Development Partnerships in research and development for neglected diseases

Product Development Partnerships (PDPs) are playing an increasingly important role in the development of new medicines for neglected diseases of the developing world; however, there has been limited information on their funding and expenditure patterns. This paper analyses funding for the 14 PDPs working on neglected disease research and development (R&D) by using unpublished data from the Global Funding of Innovation for Neglected Diseases (G-FINDER) project, which surveyed 2007 global investments into R&D of products for neglected diseases. PDPs captured US$469 million or 23% of 'external' R&D funding for neglected diseases, i.e. funding granted by donors to research organisations, as opposed to internal investments by donors. PDP's funding sources were highly concentrated with the Gates Foundation providing nearly half of PDPs' combined income (49%) and four public funders (the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the Dutch government and Irish Aid) providing 28%. PDPs collectively spent US$262 million on R&D activities in 2007, with 88% of this expenditure going to academic institutions, contract research organisations and companies in the developed world. Our analysis confirms the central role played by PDPs in R&D for neglected diseases, but highlights the need to diversify their funding sources.