Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Amanda Burls

Publications and source records attributed to Amanda Burls.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Vaccinating healthcare workers against influenza to protect the vulnerable--is it a good use of healthcare resources? A systematic review of the evidence and an economic evaluation.

Influenza causes substantial mortality in high-risk groups despite targeted vaccination programmes. This paper considers whether it is worth vaccinating healthcare workers (HCWs) against influenza to protect high-risk patients in a series of systematic reviews and an economic evaluation. Eighteen studies are included. Vaccination was highly effective in HCWs, with minimal adverse effects. Two trials assessed patient mortality after vaccinating HCWs, both of which showed a reduction. Despite recommendations, less than 25% of HCW in Europe and the UK are vaccinated. Five studies looked at programmes to increase uptake; these produced increases of 5%-45%. Published economic evaluations did not include patient benefit; therefore, an economic evaluation using UK data was undertaken. In the base case, vaccination was cost saving (pounds 12/vaccinee). In the most pessimistic scenario it cost pounds 405/life-year gained. Effective implementation should be a priority.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2005

Universal vaccination of children against influenza: are there indirect benefits to the community? A systematic review of the evidence.

We present a systematic review of the effectiveness of vaccinating healthy children to protect others. Primary studies were identified by searching standard electronic databases, internet sites, trials registers and citation lists to January 2004 and subjected to critical appraisal. Eight randomised controlled trials, three community studies and three economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. The evidence suggests that vaccinating healthy children against influenza has the potential for reducing the impact of influenza epidemics. However, further evidence is needed as limitations of study design or execution mean that the community benefits are difficult to quantify.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Sicily statement on evidence-based practice.

BACKGROUND: A variety of definitions of evidence-based practice (EBP) exist. However, definitions are in themselves insufficient to explain the underlying processes of EBP and to differentiate between an evidence-based process and evidence-based outcome. There is a need for a clear statement of what Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) means, a description of the skills required to practise in an evidence-based manner and a curriculum that outlines the minimum requirements for training health professionals in EBP. This consensus statement is based on current literature and incorporating the experience of delegates attending the 2003 Conference of Evidence-Based Health Care Teachers and Developers ("Signposting the future of EBHC"). DISCUSSION: Evidence-Based Practice has evolved in both scope and definition. Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) requires that decisions about health care are based on the best available, current, valid and relevant evidence. These decisions should be made by those receiving care, informed by the tacit and explicit knowledge of those providing care, within the context of available resources. Health care professionals must be able to gain, assess, apply and integrate new knowledge and have the ability to adapt to changing circumstances throughout their professional life. Curricula to deliver these aptitudes need to be grounded in the five-step model of EBP, and informed by ongoing research. Core assessment tools for each of the steps should continue to be developed, validated, and made freely available. SUMMARY: All health care professionals need to understand the principles of EBP, recognise EBP in action, implement evidence-based policies, and have a critical attitude to their own practice and to evidence. Without these skills, professionals and organisations will find it difficult to provide 'best practice'.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Health technology assessment: history and demand.

Health technology assessment (HTA)--the provision to decision makers of information on the value of treatments and tests--has come of age in the last two decades. But it has deep roots in health care, with notable landmarks in (1) the mid eighteenth-century development of empiricism, (2) the twentieth century interest in outcomes and variation in health care, and (3) the pioneering work of Archie Cochrane and others in the 1970s. Three main forces have driven the recent developments of HTA: a combination of concerns about the adoption of unproven technologies, rising costs, and an inexorable rise in consumer expectations. The HTA response, essentially initiatives supporting the provision of reliable synthesised research information on the effects and costs of health technologies, have been well supported in the United Kingdom and internationally. We can be sure that HTA is here to stay.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2002

Systematic reviews of specialist epilepsy services.

BACKGROUND: Concern has been expressed over UK epilepsy service standards but the most clinically effective model of care is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the current evidence on specialist epilepsy clinics compared to general neurology clinics and specialist epilepsy nurses compared to usual care. METHODS: Medline, Psychlit, Embase, Healthplan, GEARS, BIDS ISI, UKCHHO, international HTA websites, InterTASC databases and The Cochrane Library were searched to September 1999. Any studies comparing specialist epilepsy clinics or nurses to generalist services or usual care, reporting physical health, costs or generic quality-of-life outcomes were included. Two people independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted data independently. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) quality was assessed by Jadad score and other studies qualitatively by the likelihood of bias. RESULTS: Findings were one RCT and two other studies on epilepsy clinics and four RCTs and a controlled trial on epilepsy nurses. Data synthesis was inappropriate. Epilepsy clinics showed no evidence of reduced seizure frequency or severity, no quality-of-life information and were more expensive. Epilepsy nurse services showed no evidence of reduced seizure frequency or severity, no effect on quality-of-life but were less expensive. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the superiority of any particular care model for producing better health outcomes.

Ambulatory Care Facilities↗