No abstract

BackgroundPublic hospitals in developing countries, rather than the preventive and primary healthcare sectors, are the major consumers of healthcare resources. Imbalances in rational, equitable and efficient allocation of scarce resources lie in the scarcity of research & information on economic aspects of health care. The objective of this study was to determine the average cost of a spontaneous vaginal delivery and Caesarean section in a tertiary level government hospital in Islamabad, Pakistan and to estimate the out of pocket expenditures to households using these services.MethodsThis hospital based cost accounting cross sectional study determines the average cost of vaginal delivery and Caesarean section from two perspectives, the patient's and the hospital. From the patient's perspective direct and indirect expenditures of 133 post-partum mothers (65 delivered by Caesarean section & 68 by spontaneous vaginal delivery) admitted in the maternity general ward were determined. From the hospital perspective the step down methodology was adopted, capital and recurrent costs were determined from inputs and cost centers.ResultsThe average cost for a spontaneous vaginal delivery from the hospital's side was 40 US$ (2688 rupees) and from the patient's perspective was 79 US$ (5278 rupees). The average cost for a Caesarean section from the hospital side was 162 US$ (10868 rupees) and 204 US$ (13678 rupees) from the patient's side. Average monthly household income was 141 ± 87 US$ for spontaneous vaginal delivery and 168 ± 97 US$ for Caesarean section. Three fourth (74%) of households had a monthly income of less than 149 US$ (10000 rupees).ConclusionThe apparently "free" maternity care at government hospitals involves substantial hidden and unpredicted costs. The anticipated fear of these unpredicted costs may be major factor for many poor households to seek cheaper alternate maternity healthcare.

Our study results highlight the need for IMG specific orientation resources for fellows and supervisors. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs may be a useful framework for understanding IMG training needs.

A past history of an anxiety or substance use disorder may play a role in patients not completing the assessment component of the bariatric surgery process. Additional psychosocial support, such as cognitive behavioral therapy or targeted psychoeducation, may help improve patient completion of the pre-surgery assessment phase.

These findings suggest that avoidant relationship style is an important predictor of post-bariatric surgery appointment non-attendance. Recognition of patients' relationship style by bariatric surgery psychosocial team members may guide the delivery of interventions aimed at engaging this patient group post-surgery.

No abstract

INTRODUCTIONIn 2013 the Department of Health specified eligibility for bariatric surgery funded by the National Health Service. This included a mandatory specification that patients first complete a Tier 3 medical weight management programme. The clinical effectiveness of this recommendation has not been evaluated previously. Our bariatric centre has provided a Tier 3 programme six months prior to bariatric surgery since 2009. The aim of our retrospective study was to compare weight loss in two cohorts: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass only (RYGB only cohort) versus Tier 3 weight management followed by RYGB (Tier 3 cohort). METHODS A total of 110 patients were selected for the study: 66 in the RYGB only cohort and 44 in the Tier 3 cohort. Patients in both cohorts were matched for age, sex, preoperative body mass index and pre-existing co-morbidities. The principal variable was therefore whether they undertook the weight management programme prior to RYGB. Patients from both cohorts were followed up at 6 and 12 months to assess weight loss. RESULTS The mean weight loss at 6 months for the Tier 3 cohort was 31% (range: 18-69%, standard deviation [SD]: 0.10 percentage points) compared with 23% (range: 4-93%, SD: 0.12 percentage points) for the RYGB only cohort (p=0.0002). The mean weight loss at 12 months for the Tier 3 cohort was 34% (range: 17-51%, SD: 0.09 percentage points) compared with 27% (range: 14-48%, SD: 0.87 percentage points) in the RYGB only cohort (p=0.0037). CONCLUSIONS Our study revealed that in our matched cohorts, patients receiving Tier 3 specialist medical weight management input prior to RYGB lost significantly more weight at 6 and 12 months than RYGB only patients. This confirms the clinical efficacy of such a weight management programme prior to gastric bypass surgery and supports its inclusion in eligibility criteria for bariatric surgery.

No abstract