PubMed · 10169993
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
B Siwicki. 1997. Providing the proof.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10169993/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In Indonesia responsibility for immunizations is placed on local government health centres and on the nurses who provide the immunizations at each centre. An on-the-job peer training programme for these nurses, which was designed to improve the immunization performance of poorly performing health centres in terms of coverage and practice in Maluku province, was evaluated. Experienced immunization nurses were sent to health centres where nurses were inexperienced or performing poorly; the experienced nurses spent 1-2 weeks providing on-the-job training for the less experienced ones. An evaluation of the 13 centres that participated in the programme and the 95 that did not found that the programme increased both immunization coverage and the quality of practice. Coverage of diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus (DPT), polio, and measles vaccinations rose by about 39% in all 13 participating centres when compared with non-participating centres, and by about 54% in the 11 centres that had a functioning transportation system during the year after training. These results reflect increases in the actual number of doses given and improvements in the accuracy of reports. Potential threats to the study's validity were examined and found not to be significant. The out-of-pocket cost of the training programme was about US$ 53 per trainee or about US$ 0.05 per additional vaccine reported to have been given. The marginal cost per additional fully immunized child was estimated to be US$ 0.50.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: The National Emphysema Treatment Trial, a randomized clinical trial comparing lung-volume-reduction surgery with medical therapy for severe emphysema, included a prospective economic analysis. METHODS: After pulmonary rehabilitation, 1218 patients at 17 medical centers were randomly assigned to lung-volume-reduction surgery or continued medical treatment. Costs for the use of medical care, medications, transportation, and time spent receiving treatment were derived from Medicare claims and data from the trial. Cost effectiveness was calculated over the duration of the trial and was estimated for 10 years of follow-up with the use of modeling based on observed trends in survival, cost, and quality of life. RESULTS: Interim analyses identified a group of patients with excess mortality and little chance of improved functional status after surgery. When these patients were excluded, the cost-effectiveness ratio for lung-volume-reduction surgery as compared with medical therapy was 190,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 3 years and 53,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 10 years. Subgroup analyses identified patients with predominantly upper-lobe emphysema and low exercise capacity after pulmonary rehabilitation who had lower mortality and better functional status than patients who received medical therapy. The cost-effectiveness ratio in this subgroup was 98,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 3 years and 21,000 dollars at 10 years. Bootstrap analysis revealed substantial uncertainty for the subgroup and 10-year estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Given its cost and benefits over three years of follow-up, lung-volume-reduction surgery is costly relative to medical therapy. Although the predictions are subject to substantial uncertainty, the procedure may be cost effective if benefits can be maintained over time.