Objectives Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) are expected to be used for priority setting of hospital-dispensed medicines in Denmark from 2021. The aim of this study was to develop the first Danish value set for the EQ-5D-5L based on interviews with a representative sample of the Danish adult population. Methods A nationally representative sample based on age (> 18 years), gender, education, and geographical region was recruited using data provided by Statistics Denmark. Computer-assisted personal interviews were carried out using the EQ-VT 2.1. Respondents each valued ten health states using composite time trade-off (cTTO) and seven health states using discretechoice experiment (DCE). Different predictive models were explored using cTTO and DCE data alone or in combination as hybrid models. Model performance was assessed using logical consistency. Results A total of 1014 interviews were included in the analyses. The sample was representative of the Danish adult population, though the sample contained slightly more respondents with higher education than in the general population. Only the heteroscedastic censored hybrid model combining cTTO and DCE data yielded consistent results, and hence was chosen for modelling the final Danish value set. The predicted values ranged from − 0.757 to 1, and anxiety/depression was the dimension assigned most value by respondents. Conclusions This study established the Danish EQ-5D-5L value set, which represents the preferences of the Danish general population, and is expected to provide key input for healthcare decision-making in a Danish context.

BackgroundGuidelines are often slowly adapted into clinical practice. However, actively supporting healthcare professionals in evidence-based treatment may speed up guideline implementation. Danish low back pain (LBP) guidelines focus on primary care treatment of LBP, to reduce referrals from primary care to secondary care. The primary aim of this project was to reduce secondary care referral within 12 weeks by a multifaceted implementation strategy (MuIS).MethodsIn a cluster randomised design, 189 general practices from the North Denmark Region were invited to participate. Practices were randomised (1:1) and stratified by practice size to MuIS (28 practices) or a passive implementation strategy (PaIS; 32 practices). Included were patients with LBP aged 18 to 65 years who were able to complete questionnaires, had no serious underlying pathology, and were not pregnant. We developed a MuIS including outreach visits, quality reports, and the STarT Back Tool for subgrouping patients with LBP. Both groups were offered the usual dissemination of guidelines, guideline-concordant structuring of the medical record, and a new referral opportunity for patients with psycho-social problems. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary and secondary outcomes pertained to the patient, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare sector perspective. Patients and the assessment of outcomes were blinded. Practices and caregivers delivering the interventions were not blinded.ResultsBetween January 2013 and July 2014, 60 practices were included, of which 54 practices (28 MuIS, 26 PaIS) included 1101 patients (539 MuIS, 562 PaIS). Follow-up data for the primary outcome were available on 100 % of these patients. Twenty-seven patients (5.0 %) in the MuIS group were referred to secondary care vs. 59 patients (10.5 %) in the PaIS group. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) was 0.52 [95 % CI 0.30 to 0.90; p = 0.020]. The MuIS was cost-saving £−93.20 (£406.51 vs. £499.71 per patient) after 12 weeks. Conversely, the MuIS resulted in less satisfied patients after 52 weeks (AOR 0.50 [95 % CI 0.31 to 0.81; p = 0.004]).ConclusionsUsing a MuIS changed general practice referral behaviour and was cost effective, but patients in the MuIS group were less satisfied. This study supports the application of a MuIS when implementing guidelines.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01699256 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0509-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In connection with the publication of a clinical practice guideline on the management of low back pain (LBP) in general practice in Denmark, a cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted. In this trial, a multifaceted guideline implementation strategy to improve general practitioners' treatment of patients with LBP was compared with a usual implementation strategy. The aim was to determine whether the multifaceted strategy was cost effective, as compared with the usual implementation strategy. The economic evaluation was conducted as a cost-utility analysis where cost collected from a societal perspective and quality-adjusted life years were used as outcome measures. The analysis was conducted as a within-trial analysis with a 12-month time horizon consistent with the follow-up period of the clinical trial. To adjust for a priori selected covariates, generalised linear models with a gamma family were used to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years. Furthermore, both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results showed that costs associated with primary health care were higher, whereas secondary health care costs were lower for the intervention group when compared with the control group. When adjusting for covariates, the intervention was less costly, and there was no significant difference in effect between the 2 groups. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were sensitive to uncertainty. In conclusion, the multifaceted implementation strategy was cost saving when compared with the usual strategy for implementing LBP clinical practice guidelines in general practice. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in effect, and the estimate was sensitive to uncertainty.

Aims: The aims of this study were to provide Danish population norms for the EQ-5D-5L and to assess the measurement properties of the instrument in a Danish population setting. Methods: We used data from the Danish 5L valuation study in which a representative sample of the Danish population completed the EQ-5D-5L and answered socio-demographic questions. We generated population norms for the five EQ-5D-5L dimensions, corresponding utility scores and the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) according to age and sex. Measurement properties of ceiling effects, known-group construct validity and convergent validity were assessed. Results: The mean EQ-5D-5L utility score for the 1014 respondents completing the EQ-5D-5L was 0.90 (standard deviation ( SD)=0.16). No significant differences emerged across age groups (minimum mean utility score=0.88 ( SD=0.19); maximum mean utility score=0.93 ( SD=0.11)) or sex (mean utility score for women=0.89 ( SD=0.17); mean utility score for men=0.91 ( SD=0.15)). Statistical differences were found across educational level, occupational status, income and living situation. Similar patterns were observed for the EQ VAS. Generally, respondents most often reported problems with pain and discomfort, but young women most often reported problems with anxiety/depression. There was a significant strong correlation between EQ-5D-5L utility and the EQ VAS and a significant correlation between overall health and each of the five EQ-5D-5L dimensions. The overall ceiling effect for the EQ-5D-5L was 39% (compared to 56% for the EQ-5D-3L). Conclusions: Danish population norms for the EQ-5D-5L are now available. We found fewer ceiling effects for the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L, and we provide evidence for convergent and known-group validity of the EQ-5D-5L.

BackgroundEvidence-based clinical practice guidelines may improve treatment quality, but the uptake of guideline recommendations is often incomplete and slow. Recently new low back pain guidelines are being launched in Denmark. The guidelines are considered to reduce personal and public costs. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether a complex, multifaceted implementation strategy of the low back pain guidelines will reduce secondary care referral and improve patient outcomes compared to the usual simple implementation strategy.Methods/designIn a two-armed cluster randomised trial, 100 general practices (clusters) and 2,700 patients aged 18 to 65 years from the North Denmark region will be included. Practices are randomly allocated 1:1 to a simple or a complex implementation strategy. Intervention practices will receive a complex implementation strategy, including guideline facilitator visits, stratification tools, and quality reports on low back pain treatment. Primary outcome is referral to secondary care. Secondary outcomes are pain, physical function, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction with care and treatment outcome, employment status, and sick leave. Primary and secondary outcomes pertain to the patient level. Assessments of outcomes are blinded and follow the intention-to-treat principle. Additionally, a process assessment will evaluate the degree to which the intervention elements will be delivered as planned, as well as measure changes in beliefs and behaviours among general practitioners and patients.DiscussionThis study provides knowledge concerning the process and effect of an intervention to implement low back pain guidelines in general practice, and will provide insight on essential elements to include in future implementation strategies in general practice.Trial registrationRegistered as NCT01699256 on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Purpose To develop a mapping algorithm for generating EQ-5D-5-level (EQ-5D-5L) utility scores from the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). Methods The algorithm was developed using data from 1232 patients from four countries participating in the National Health and Wellness Study. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the conceptual overlap between DLQI and EQ-5D-5L. Six mapping models (ordinary least squares [OLS], Tobit, three different two-part models, and a regression mixture model) were tested with different specifications to determine model performance and were ranked based on the sum of mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean squared error (RMSE). Results The mean DLQI score was 7.23; mean EQ-5D-5L score was 0.78; and there were moderate negative correlations between DLQI and EQ-5D-5L scores (p = − 0.514). A regression mixture model with total DLQI, and age and sex as independent variables performed best for mapping DLQI to EQ-5D-5L (RMSE = 0.113; MAE = 0.079). Conclusion This was the first study to map DLQI to EQ-5D-5L exclusively in patients with AD. The regression mixture model with total DLQI, and age and sex as independent variables was the best performing model and accurately predicted EQ-5D-5L. The results of this mapping can be used to translate DLQI data from clinical studies to health state utility values in economic evaluations.Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction:Health service research often involves the active participation of healthcare professionals. However, their ability and commitment to research varies. This can cause recruitment difficulties and thereby prolong the study period and inflate budgets. Solberg has identified seven R-factors as determinants for successfully recruiting healthcare professionals: relationships, reputation, requirements, rewards, reciprocity, resolution, and respect.Method:This is a process evaluation of the seven R-factors. We applied these factors to guide the design of our recruitment strategy as well as to make adjustments when recruiting general practices in a guideline implementation study. In the guideline implementation study, we studied the effect of outreach visits, quality reports, and new patient stratification tools for low back pain patients.Results:During a period of 15 months, we recruited 60 practices, which was fewer than planned (100 practices). In this evaluation, five of Solberg’s seven R-factors were successfully addressed and two factors were not. The need to involve (reciprocity) end users in the development of new software and the amount of time needed to conduct recruitment (resolution) were underestimated.Conclusion:The framework of the seven R-factors was a feasible tool in our recruitment process. However, we suggest further investigation in developing systematic approaches to support the recruitment of healthcare professionals to research.

ObjectiveThe primary aim is to identify, summarise and quality assess the available literature on the cost-effectiveness of implementing low back pain guidelines in primary care. The secondary aim is to assess the transferability of the results to determine whether the identified studies can be included in a comparison with a Danish implementation study to establish which strategy procures most value for money.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesThe search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Scopus, CINAHL and EconLit. No restrictions were made concerning language, year of publication or publication type. The bibliographies of the included studies were searched for any studies not captured in the literature search.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesTo be included, a study must be: (1) based on a randomised controlled trial comparing implementation strategies, (2) the guideline must concern treatment of low back pain in primary care and (3) the economic evaluation should contain primary data on cost and cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe title and abstract were assessed for 308 studies; of these, three studies were found eligible for inclusion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list showed that the 3 studies were of moderate methodological quality while application of Welte's model showed that cost results from two studies could, with adjustments, be transferred to a Danish setting. It was questionable whether the associated effects could be transferred.ConclusionsDespite the resemblance of the implementation strategies, the 3 studies report conflicting results on cost-effectiveness. This review showed that transferring the results from the identified studies is not straightforward and underlines the importance of transparent reporting. Future research should focus on transferability of effects, for example, development of a supplement to Welte's model.