In current clinical practice, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are typically inserted using external anatomical measurements and a confirmatory chest X-ray, or using fluoroscopy. The Sherlock 3CG® Tip Confirmation System (TCS) allows magnetic tracking of the PICC tip during insertion and confirmation of the final location using ECG, meaning that most patients will not require a chest X-ray or fluoroscopy. The Sherlock 3CG® TCS was evaluated in 2014 by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as part of the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme. The company (C.R. Bard Ltd) identified four abstracts, one paper pending publication and questionnaire data from NHS users of the Sherlock 3CG® TCS. None of the evidence included a comparator arm. Placement accuracy of PICCs using the Sherlock 3CG® TCS where a chest X-ray was also used ranged from 79.5 to 100 %. The company reported that 9 out of 16 NHS centres that used the Sherlock 3CG® TCS were no longer using chest X-rays to routinely confirm PICC tip location. The evidence did not report the need for catheter repositioning, re-insertion, staff time savings, treatment delays, length of stay, quality of life outcomes or complications. The company’s model found that the Sherlock 3CG® TCS was cost saving by GBP25.67 per patient compared to blind bedside PICC insertion. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) adapted the company’s model to test alternative assumptions for nurse time, theatre cost, malposition rate and reinsertion method, and found that the Sherlock 3CG® TCS was cost incurring by GBP9.37 per patient compared to blind bedside PICC insertion. The use of the Sherlock 3CG® TCS in the UK NHS compared to blind PICC insertion using a confirmatory chest X-ray appears to hover around being cost neutral. Staff time and accuracy were key drivers in the model: evidence for these is sparse and the reality will vary in different situations. If evidence became available for outcomes after the initial insertion, such as replacement, complications and adverse events, the cost implications may change. The direction of this potential change is not known. NICE published guidance MTG24 in March 2015 recommending that the case for adoption of Sherlock 3CG® TCS was supported by the evidence.

BackgroundWriting therapy to improve physical or mental health can take many forms. The most researched model of therapeutic writing (TW) is unfacilitated, individual expressive writing (written emotional disclosure). Facilitated writing activities are less widely researched.Data sourcesDatabases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, were searched from inception to March 2013 (updated January 2015).Review methodsFour TW practitioners provided expert advice. Study procedures were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies were included. Quality was appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Unfacilitated and facilitated TW studies were analysed separately underInternational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision chapter headings. Meta-analyses were performed where possible using RevMan version 5.2.6 (RevMan 2012, The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Costs were estimated from a UK NHS perspective and three cost–consequence case studies were prepared. Realist synthesis followed Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines.ObjectivesTo review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TW for people with long-term conditions (LTCs) compared with no writing, or other controls, reporting any relevant clinical outcomes. To conduct a realist synthesis to understand how TW might work, and for whom.ResultsFrom 14,658 unique citations, 284 full-text papers were reviewed and 64 studies (59 RCTs) were included in the final effectiveness reviews. Five studies examined facilitated TW; these were extremely heterogeneous with unclear or high risk of bias but suggested that facilitated TW interventions may be beneficial in individual LTCs. Unfacilitated expressive writing was examined in 59 studies of variable or unreported quality. Overall, there was very little or no evidence of any benefit reported in the following conditions (number of studies): human immunodeficiency virus (six); breast cancer (eight); gynaecological and genitourinary cancers (five); mental health (five); asthma (four); psoriasis (three); and chronic pain (four). In inflammatory arthropathies (six) there was a reduction in disease severity [n = 191, standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.96 to –0.26] in the short term on meta-analysis of four studies. For all other LTCs there were either no data, or sparse data with no or inconsistent, evidence of benefit. Meta-analyses conducted acrossallof the LTCs provided no evidence that unfacilitated emotional writing had any effect on depression at short- (n = 1563, SMD –0.06, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.17, substantial heterogeneity) or long-term (n = 778, SMD –0.04 95% CI –0.18 to 0.10, little heterogeneity) follow-up, or on anxiety, physiological or biomarker-based outcomes. One study reported costs, no studies reported cost-effectiveness and 12 studies reported resource use; and meta-analysis suggested reduced medication use but no impact on health centre visits. Estimated costs of intervention were low, but there was insufficient evidence to judge cost-effectiveness. Realist synthesis findings suggested that facilitated TW is a complex intervention and group interaction contributes to the perception of benefit. It was unclear from the available data who might benefit most from facilitated TW.LimitationDifficulties with developing realist synthesis programme theory meant that mechanisms operating during TW remain obscure.ConclusionsOverall, there is little evidence to support the therapeutic effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of unfacilitated expressive writing interventions in people with LTCs. Further research focused on facilitated TW in people with LTCs could be informative.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003343.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A routine part of the process for developing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) medical technologies guidance is a submission of clinical and economic evidence by the technology manufacturer. The Birmingham and Brunel Consortium External Assessment Centre (EAC; a consortium of the University of Birmingham and Brunel University) independently appraised the submission on the EXOGEN bone healing system for long bone fractures with non-union or delayed healing. This article is an overview of the original evidence submitted, the EAC’s findings, and the final NICE guidance issued.

Objectives: To systematically review the existing literature on the value associated with convenience in health care delivery, independent of health outcomes, and to try to estimate the likely magnitude of any value found. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for previously published studies that reported preferences for convenience-related aspects of health care delivery in a manner that was consistent with either cost-utility analysis or cost-benefit analysis. Data were analyzed in terms of the methodologies used, the aspects of convenience considered, and the values reported. Results: Literature searches generated 4715 records. Following a review of abstracts or full-text articles, 27 were selected for inclusion. Twentysix studies reported some evidence of convenience-related process utility, in the form of either a positive utility or a positive willingness to pay. The aspects of convenience valued most often were mode of administration (n ¼ 11) and location of treatment (n ¼ 6). The most common valuation methodology was a discrete-choice experiment containing a cost component (n ¼ 15). Conclusions: A preference for convenience-related process utility exists, independent of health outcomes. Given the diverse methodologies used to calculate it, and the range of aspects being valued, however, it is difficult to assess how large such a preference might be, or how it may be effectively incorporated into an economic evaluation. Increased consistency in reporting these preferences is required to assess these issues more accurately.

BackgroundIncreasing breastfeeding rates have been associated with reductions in disease in babies and mothers as well as in related costs. ‘Nourishing Start for Health (NoSH)’, a financial incentive scheme has been proposed as a potentially effective way to increase both the number of mothers breastfeeding and duration of breastfeeding.AimsTo establish women’s relative preferences for different aspects of a financial incentive scheme for breastfeeding and to identify importance of scheme characteristics on probability on participation in an incentive scheme.MethodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) obtained information on alternative specifications of the NoSH scheme designed to promote continued breastfeeding duration until at least 6 weeks after birth. Four attributes framed alternative scheme designs: value of the incentive; minimum breastfeeding duration required to receive incentive; method of verifying breastfeeding; type of incentive. Three versions of the DCE questionnaire, each containing 8 different choice sets, provided 24 choice sets for analysis. The questionnaire was mailed to 2,531 women in the South Yorkshire Cohort (SYC) aged 16–45 years in IMD quintiles 3–5. The analytic approach considered conditional and mixed effects logistic models to account for preference heterogeneity that may be associated with a variation in effects mediated by respondents’ characteristics.Results564 women completed the questionnaire and a response rate of 22% was achieved. Most of the included attributes were found to affect utility and therefore the probability to participate in the incentive scheme. Higher rewards were preferred, although the type of incentive significantly affected women’s preferences on average. We found evidence for preference heterogeneity based on individual characteristics that mediated preferences for an incentive scheme.ConclusionsAlthough participants’ opinion in our sample was mixed, financial incentives for breastfeeding may be an acceptable and effective instrument to change behaviour. However, individual characteristics could mediate the effect and should therefore be considered when developing and targeting future interventions.