Carlos Sillero-Rejon, William Hollingworth, Brent C Opmeer, Karen Luyt, Hugh McLeod
{"title":"一种评估实施方案成本效益的协调方法：以质量改进方案为例，以增加早产儿硫酸镁的摄取。","authors":"Carlos Sillero-Rejon, William Hollingworth, Brent C Opmeer, Karen Luyt, Hugh McLeod","doi":"10.1007/s40258-025-00993-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methods for the economic evaluation of implementation initiatives to increase the uptake of cost-effective healthcare interventions are not standardised. Value of implementation and policy cost-effectiveness are two proposed approaches. This research aims to compare these two methods and propose a standardised approach. To illustrate this, we evaluated two implementation programmes to increase magnesium sulphate (MgSO<sub>4</sub>) uptake in preterm labour to reduce the risk of cerebral palsy: (i) the National PReCePT Programme (NPP), which provided regional support and funded clinical time in maternity units in England, and (ii) an enhanced support programme (ESP) with additional unit-level coaching and extra funded time, which was nested within the NPP and subject to a cluster randomised control trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After summarising value of implementation and policy cost-effectiveness methods, we explored the extent to which the two methods can be viewed as mathematically equivalent for the purpose of evaluating the NPP (versus pre-existing trends) and the ESP (versus the NPP) calculating their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, net monetary benefits and their probability of being cost-effective.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We demonstrate how the value of implementation and policy cost-effectiveness approaches can be expressed in equivalent terms and set out our standardised stepwise method for evaluating the NPP (versus pre-existing trends) and the ESP (versus the NPP). Our method found that the NPP generated a net monetary benefit of £30,247 per maternity unit over 12 months, with a 98% probability of being cost-effective. In contrast, the ESP generated a net monetary loss of £28,682 per unit compared with the NPP, with a 22% probability of being cost-effective.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our standardised method could promote a more systematic assessment of the value for money of implementation interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Reconciled Method for Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Implementation Programmes: Illustrated by Quality Improvement Programmes to Increase the Uptake of Magnesium Sulphate in Preterm Births.\",\"authors\":\"Carlos Sillero-Rejon, William Hollingworth, Brent C Opmeer, Karen Luyt, Hugh McLeod\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40258-025-00993-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methods for the economic evaluation of implementation initiatives to increase the uptake of cost-effective healthcare interventions are not standardised. Value of implementation and policy cost-effectiveness are two proposed approaches. This research aims to compare these two methods and propose a standardised approach. To illustrate this, we evaluated two implementation programmes to increase magnesium sulphate (MgSO<sub>4</sub>) uptake in preterm labour to reduce the risk of cerebral palsy: (i) the National PReCePT Programme (NPP), which provided regional support and funded clinical time in maternity units in England, and (ii) an enhanced support programme (ESP) with additional unit-level coaching and extra funded time, which was nested within the NPP and subject to a cluster randomised control trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After summarising value of implementation and policy cost-effectiveness methods, we explored the extent to which the two methods can be viewed as mathematically equivalent for the purpose of evaluating the NPP (versus pre-existing trends) and the ESP (versus the NPP) calculating their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, net monetary benefits and their probability of being cost-effective.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We demonstrate how the value of implementation and policy cost-effectiveness approaches can be expressed in equivalent terms and set out our standardised stepwise method for evaluating the NPP (versus pre-existing trends) and the ESP (versus the NPP). Our method found that the NPP generated a net monetary benefit of £30,247 per maternity unit over 12 months, with a 98% probability of being cost-effective. In contrast, the ESP generated a net monetary loss of £28,682 per unit compared with the NPP, with a 22% probability of being cost-effective.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our standardised method could promote a more systematic assessment of the value for money of implementation interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-025-00993-6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-025-00993-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Reconciled Method for Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Implementation Programmes: Illustrated by Quality Improvement Programmes to Increase the Uptake of Magnesium Sulphate in Preterm Births.
Background: Methods for the economic evaluation of implementation initiatives to increase the uptake of cost-effective healthcare interventions are not standardised. Value of implementation and policy cost-effectiveness are two proposed approaches. This research aims to compare these two methods and propose a standardised approach. To illustrate this, we evaluated two implementation programmes to increase magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) uptake in preterm labour to reduce the risk of cerebral palsy: (i) the National PReCePT Programme (NPP), which provided regional support and funded clinical time in maternity units in England, and (ii) an enhanced support programme (ESP) with additional unit-level coaching and extra funded time, which was nested within the NPP and subject to a cluster randomised control trial.
Methods: After summarising value of implementation and policy cost-effectiveness methods, we explored the extent to which the two methods can be viewed as mathematically equivalent for the purpose of evaluating the NPP (versus pre-existing trends) and the ESP (versus the NPP) calculating their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, net monetary benefits and their probability of being cost-effective.
Results: We demonstrate how the value of implementation and policy cost-effectiveness approaches can be expressed in equivalent terms and set out our standardised stepwise method for evaluating the NPP (versus pre-existing trends) and the ESP (versus the NPP). Our method found that the NPP generated a net monetary benefit of £30,247 per maternity unit over 12 months, with a 98% probability of being cost-effective. In contrast, the ESP generated a net monetary loss of £28,682 per unit compared with the NPP, with a 22% probability of being cost-effective.
Discussion: Our standardised method could promote a more systematic assessment of the value for money of implementation interventions.
期刊介绍：
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy.
While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
