Purpose This study was conducted in order to systematically review the costs of hip fractures globally and identify drivers of differences in costs. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify studies reporting patient level fragility hip fracture costs between 1990 and 2015. We extracted data on the participants and costs from these studies. Cost data concerning the index hospitalisation were pooled, and a meta-regression was used to examine its potential drivers. We also pooled data on the first-year costs following hip fracture and considered healthcare, social care as well as other cost categories if reported by studies. Results One hundred and thirteen studies reported costs of hip fracture based on patient level data. Patients developing complications as well as patients enrolled in intervention arms of comparative studies were found to have significantly higher costs compared to the controls. The pooled estimate of the cost for the index hospitalisation was $10,075. Health and social care costs at 12 months were $43,669 with inpatient costs being their major driver. Meta-regression analysis identified age, gender and geographic region as being significantly associated with the differences in costs for the index hospitalisation. Conclusion Hip fracture poses a significant economic burden and variation exists in their costs across different regions. We found that there was a considerable variation across studies in terms of study design, methodology, follow-up period, costs considered and results reported that highlights the need for more standardisation in this area of research.

IntroductionSocial isolation and loneliness affect approximately one-third to one-half of the elderly population and have a negative impact on their physical and mental health. Group-based interventions where facilitators are well trained and where the elderly are actively engaged in their development seem to be more effective, but conclusions have been limited by weak study designs. We aim to conduct a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of health promotion interventions on social isolation or loneliness in older people.Methods and analysisA systematic review was conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, LILACS, OpenGrey and the Cochrane Library on peer-reviewed studies and doctoral theses published between 1995 and 2016 evaluating the impact of health promotion interventions on social isolation and/or loneliness for individuals aged 60 and over. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a predefined pro forma following best practice. Study quality will be assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. A narrative synthesis of all studies will be presented by type of outcome (social isolation or loneliness) and type of intervention. If feasible, the effectiveness data will be synthesised using appropriate statistical techniques.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The findings of the review will be disseminated in a related peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. They will also contribute to a DPhil thesis.Trial registration numberCRD42016039650

Delayed discharges occur in most countries and the associated costs are significant. However, the variability in prevalence of delayed discharges and available data on costs limit our knowledge of the full impact of delayed discharges. A standardization of methods is necessary to allow comparisons to be made, and additional studies are required-preferably by disease area-to determine the postdischarge needs of specific patient groups and the estimated costs of delays.

High risk of social isolation, social isolation and referral to public-funded rehabilitation units increase delays in patients' discharges from acute care hospitals.

Background Obtaining reliable estimates of the health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) of people with predementia Alzheimer’s disease [AD] (preclinical or prodromal AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia is essential for economic evaluations of related health interventions. Aims To provide an overview of which quality of life instruments are being used to assess HR-QoL in people with predementia AD, MCI or dementia; and, to summarise their reported HR-QoL levels at each stage of the disease and by type of respondent. Methods We systematically searched for and reviewed eligible studies published between January 1990 and the end of April 2017 which reported HR-QoL for people with predementia AD, MCI or dementia. We only included instruments which are preference-based, allowing index scores/utility values to be attached to each health state they describe based on preferences obtained from population surveys. Summary results were presented by respondent type (self or proxy), type of instrument, geographical location and, where possible, stage of disease. Health state utility values derived using the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) were meta-analysed by pooling reported results across all studies by disease severity (MCI, mild, mild to moderate, moderate, severe dementia, not specified) and by respondent (person with dementia, carer, general public, not specified), using a fixed-effects approach. Results We identified 61 studies which reported HR-QoL for people with MCI or dementia using preference-based instruments, of which 48 used the EQ-5D. Thirty-six studies reported HR-QoL for mild and/or moderate disease severities, and 12 studies reported utility values for MCI. We found systematic differences between self-rated and proxy-rated HR-QoL, with proxy-rated utility valued being significantly lower in more severe disease states. Conclusions A substantial literature now exists quantifying the impact of dementia on HR-QoL using preference-based measures, giving researchers and modellers a firmer basis on which to select appropriate utility values when estimating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions in this area. Further research is required on HR-QoL of people with preclinical and prodromal AD and MCI, possible differences by type of dementia, the effects of comorbidities, study setting and the informal caregiver’s own HR-QoL, including any effect of that on their proxy-ratings.

IntroductionDementia is the fastest growing major cause of disability globally and may have a profound impact on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of both the patient with dementia and those who care for them. This review aims to systematically identify and synthesise the measurements of HRQoL for people with, and their caregivers across the full spectrum of, dementia from its preceding stage of predementia to end of life.Methods and analysisA systematic literature review was conducted in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, ExcerptaMedicadataBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and PsycINFO between January 1990 and the end of April 2017. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form following best practice. Study quality will be assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. HRQoL measurements will be presented separately for people with dementia and caregivers by instrument used and, when possible, HRQoL will be reported by disease type and stage of the disease. Descriptive statistics of the results will be provided. A narrative synthesis of studies will also be provided discussing differences in HRQoL measurements by instrument used to estimate it, type of dementia and disease severity.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic literature review is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The findings of the review will be disseminated in a related peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. They will also contribute to the work developed in the Real World Outcomes across the Alzheimer’s disease spectrum for better care: multimodal data access platform (ROADMAP).Trial registration number CRD42017071416.

No abstract

Objectives Primary objectives: to determine whether local anaesthetic transperineal prostate (LATP) biopsy improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group ≥2 disease (i.e., any Gleason pattern 4 disease), compared to transrectal ultrasound‐guided (TRUS) prostate biopsy, in biopsy‐naïve men undergoing biopsy based on suspicion of csPCa. Secondary objectives: to compare (i) infection rates, (ii) health‐related quality of life, (iii) patient‐reported procedure tolerability, (iv) patient‐reported biopsy‐related complications (including bleeding, bruising, pain, loss of erectile function), (v) number of subsequent prostate biopsy procedures required, (vi) cost‐effectiveness, (vii) other histological parameters, and (viii) burden and rate of detection of clinically insignificant PCa (ISUP Grade Group 1 disease) in men undergoing these two types of prostate biopsy. Patients and Methods The TRANSLATE trial is a UK‐wide, multicentre, randomised clinical trial that meets the criteria for level‐one evidence in diagnostic test evaluation. TRANSLATE is investigating whether LATP biopsy leads to a higher rate of detection of csPCa compared to TRUS prostate biopsy. Both biopsies are being performed with an average of 12 systematic cores in six sectors (depending on prostate size), plus three to five target cores per multiparametric/bi‐parametric magnetic resonance imaging lesion. LATP biopsy is performed using an ultrasound probe‐mounted needle‐guidance device (either the ‘Precision‐Point’ or BK UA1232 system). TRUS biopsy is performed according to each hospital's standard practice. The study is 90% powered to detect a 10% difference (LATP biopsy hypothesised at 55% detection rate for csPCa vs 45% for TRUS biopsy). A total of 1042 biopsy‐naïve men referred with suspected PCa need to be recruited. Conclusions This trial will provide robust prospective data to determine the diagnostic ability of LATP biopsy vs TRUS biopsy in the primary diagnostic setting.