BackgroundOur research focuses on the co-creation of value in healthcare with reference to a case of hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE). Our work is mainly based on the concept of value co-creation in healthcare. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of an alternative treatment strategy – self-administration – by focusing on treatment outcomes and costs to understand if innovative therapeutic solutions can create value for patients and healthcare systems.MethodsThis paper compares home-based and hospital-based therapeutic strategies (independent of treatment type) with a cost minimization analysis. It encompasses compliance issues and focuses on both payer and societal perspectives, also benefiting from an operationalization of the service-dominant logic model for healthcare delivery. Data were collected over a 6-month period (August 2014–January 2015) through monthly patient interviews. Archival data were used for variable measurement.ResultsThirty-nine out of 62 patients enrolled in the study, experienced at least one HAE attacks, equally distributed between home and hospital-based strategies. No evidence of correlation between therapeutic strategy and disease severity score (p = 0.351), compliance (p = 0.399), and quality of life (p = 0.971), were found. Total direct cost per attack amounts to € 1224 for home-based strategy with respect to € 1454 for hospital-based strategy, with a savings of € 230. The economic advantage of the home-based strategy almost doubles if the societal perspective was considered due to a further savings of €169 (less missed work/school days and no travel expenses).ConclusionsOur study suggests that home-based therapies represent a feasible strategy for managing C1-INH-HAE and may result in lower costs and increased value for both patients and the healthcare systems. The findings are relevant to the debate on and extend the extant literature to provide a broader view of value co-creation dynamics for home-based therapies in healthcare and their positive effects. The insights are relevant to practitioners and policy makers.

This paper analyses factors determining open environmental innovation (EI) and explores the possibility of embracing their tensions to achieve integrated environmental strategic goals.Building on recent literature linking open innovation and EI, the study assumes open EI strategic goals as a multidimensional construct based on the “synergistic and interwoven nature” of four identified enabling factors, that is, partners, knowledge, benefits, and motivations.A fuzzy‐set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) based on Boolean algebra is conducted to analyse a set of 186 European companies operating in the telecommunication and information and communication technology (ICT) service industries.Making important theoretical, managerial, and policy contributions, this paper offers insights into the key factors enabling open EI and the tensional relationships within and between them. In doing so, it captures the non‐linear effects among these factors and the strategic goals related to an open EI strategy. It also suggests how the paradox theory might help in addressing the tensional dilemma of open EI strategy.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Attacks of hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE) are commonly treated in the emergency department. Self-administration is emerging as an effective treatment option. In this study, we assessed the impact of home therapy with plasma-derived C1 esterase inhibitor (pdC1-INH) concentrate on treatment outcomes and costs. Methods: This is an observational study in C1-INH-HAE patients who switched to home therapy with pdC1-INH (Berinert®) after learning intravenous self-infusion in a training course at a center in Southern Italy. Before starting home therapy and after the first year of home therapy, patients were interviewed about their treatment and outcomes during the prior 12 months. Annual costs were analyzed by cost minimization from the Italian health care payer perspective and the societal perspective. Outcomes and costs before and after the switch to home therapy were compared. Results: The training course was attended by 36 participants, 17 (47.2%) of whom decided to switch to home therapy. This therapy was associated with a significant decrease in the mean annual number of hospitalizations (16.8 vs. 2.1, p = 0.003) and missed work/school days (20.3 vs. 7.1, p = 0.037) compared to conventional treatment. The times from symptom onset to treatment administration and from treatment administration to symptom improvement/resolution were not significantly different between the two strategies. The mean annual per-patient costs decreased with home therapy from EUR 30,010.57 to EUR 26,621.16 (11.3% saving) and from EUR 29,309.34 to EUR 26,522.04 (9.5% saving) from the societal and payer perspective, respectively. Conclusions: Home therapy with pdC1-INH is a feasible strategy for the management of C1-INH-HAE and may result in cost savings.