Author:
Räsänen Pirjo,Sintonen Harri,Ryynänen Olli-Pekka,Blom Marja,Semberg-Konttinen Virpi,Roine Risto P.
Abstract
Objectives: Whether cost-effectiveness of secondary health care can be measured in a simple, yet commensurate way was studied.Methods: Approximately 4,900 patients' health-related quality of life scores before and after treatment were measured. Used were a combination of quality of life data with diagnostic and financial indicators routinely collected in the hospital.Results: Seventy percent of patients returned the first questionnaire and the informed written consent to participate. Of these patients, 80 percent also returned the second questionnaire sent out 3 to 12 months after treatment, depending on clinical specialty and diagnostic category. The routine of sending out questionnaires could be automated in such a way that data collection required only a limited amount of extra work. Patients were generally satisfied with the fact that the hospital was interested in their well-being also after treatment. No physician offered the chance to participate refused data collection in the patient group he or she was responsible for. The attitudes of the nursing staff were generally positive toward data collection, although it caused some extra work for some of them. The possibility of relating already routinely collected financial performance indicators with a relevant measure of treatment effectiveness, opened prospects for refined analysis of cost-effectiveness of secondary health care.Conclusions: Routine collection of health-related quality of life data as an indicator of treatment effectiveness is feasible, requires only a small amount of extra work, and is potentially very useful when combined with existing measures of hospital performance.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference13 articles.
1. Blom-Lange M , Sintonen H .1998.Measuring the effectiveness of hospital treatment.Paper presented at the 19th Nordic Health Economists' Study Group Meeting in Oslo, Norway, August 21-22,pp. 1–10.SINTEF Unimed; 1998.
2. Sintonen H .1995.The 15D measure of health-related quality of life. II Feasibility, reliability and validity of its valuation system.National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Working Paper 42, Melbourne;
3. Rawlins MD , Culyer AJ .2004 National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments.BMJ.329:224–227.
4. Hawthorne G , Richardson J , Day NA .2001 A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments.Ann Med.33:358–370.
5. Gold MR , Russell LB , Siegel JE , Weinstein MC .1996.Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.New York:Oxford University Press;
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献