Per-patient OA costs are considerable and a patient's quality of life remains poor. Variations in costing methods are a barrier to understanding the true differences in the costs of OA between studies. Standardizing healthcare resource items, the definition of OA-relevant costs, and productivity loss measures would facilitate the comparison.
Our objective was to summarise systematically all research evidence related to how patients value outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).We conducted a systematic review (systematic review registration number CRD42015015206) by searching PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL, and included reports that assessed the relative importance of outcomes from COPD patients' perspective. Two authors independently determined the eligibility of studies, abstracted the eligible studies and assessed risk of bias. We narratively summarised eligible studies, meta-analysed utilities for individual outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach.We included 217 quantitative studies. Investigators most commonly used utility measurements of outcomes (n=136), discrete choice exercises (n=13), probability trade-off (n=4) and forced choice techniques (n=46). Patients rated adverse events as important but on average, less so than symptom relief. Exacerbation and hospitalisation due to exacerbation are the outcomes that COPD patients rate as most important. This systematic review provides a comprehensive registry of related studies.
RCTs reporting continuous outcomes typically have over 10% of participant data missing. Most RCTs failed to use optimal analytic methods, and very few conducted sensitivity analyses addressing the possible impact of MPD or commented on how MPD might influence risk of bias.
Background: Medical litigation represents a growing cost to healthcare systems. Mediation, arbitration, and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods are increasingly used to help solve the disputes and improve healthcare satisfaction. In China, the increasing number of medical disputes has contributed to concern for the safety of physicians and mistrust between physician and patients resulting in ADR processes being established in several provinces in recent years. Our aim was to describe and explain the impact of this new mediation process in the Chinese healthcare system.
Methods:Our study investigated mediation practices in China using case-level data from 5614 mediation records in Guangdong Province between 2013 and 2015. We investigated how the resolution success as well as the compensations are associated with the case characteristics using regression analysis. Results: Among the cases analyzed, 1995 (41%) were solved with agreement through mediation, 1030 were closed by reconciliation, 559 were closed by referring to court and 1017 cases were withdrawn after mediation. Five hundred five Yinao cases were solved with the help of mediators on the spot. We find that mediation solved about 90% of medical disputes under present mechanisms, while more police support is needed to cope with Yinao. The average compensation of mediation is CNY60,200 and average length of mediation is 87 days. Longer time taken to reach resolution and more money claimed by patients are associated with lower resolution success rate (p < 0.01) and higher compensation levels (p < 0.01).
Conclusion:Our results show the performance of mediation mechanisms in China to help solve medical disputes. ADR plays a role in reducing the need for initiating litigation and may ultimately increase satisfaction with the healthcare system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.