Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10173468

Joint working. Local differences.

Abstract

The interface between social care and primary healthcare remains underdeveloped. Where joint working is effective, it is the result of co-operation, trust and mutual respect. Successful local networks take account of professional autonomy.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B Hudson. 1997-09-18. Joint working. Local differences.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10173468/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Active versus passive immunization against hepatitis A in the Israel defence forces: a cost-benefit analysis.

We compared cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses of hepatitis A prevention with immune serum globulin (ISG) vs inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (iHAV) in the Israel Defence Forces. Personnel were grouped according to conditions and duration of service and analyses were performed based on maximum and minimum hepatitis A projected incidences for each group. For standing army soldiers in field units, iHAV is economically superior compared with ISG. For the five other groups studied, the reverse is true. Expected increases in production costs of ISG and expected decreases in costs of iHAV are likely to make iHAV more economical in the future.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

A clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence: A US Public Health Service report. The Tobacco Use and Dependence Clinical Practice Guideline Panel, Staff, and Consortium Representatives.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the recently published US Public Health Service report Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: A Clinical Practice Guideline, which provides recommendations for brief clinical interventions, intensive clinical interventions, and system changes to promote the treatment of tobacco dependence. PARTICIPANTS: An independent panel of 18 scientists, clinicians, consumers, and methodologists selected by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. A consortium of 7 governmental and nonprofit organizations sponsored the update. EVIDENCE: Approximately 6000 English-language, peer-reviewed articles and abstracts, published between 1975 and 1999, were reviewed for data that addressed assessment and treatment of tobacco dependence. This literature served as the basis for more than 50 meta-analyses. CONSENSUS PROCESS: One panel meeting and numerous conference calls and staff meetings were held to evaluate meta-analytic and other results, to synthesize the results, and to develop recommendations. The updated guideline was then externally reviewed by more than 70 experts and revised. CONCLUSIONS: This evidence-based, updated guideline provides specific recommendations regarding brief and intensive tobacco cessation interventions as well as system-level changes designed to promote the assessment and treatment of tobacco use. Brief clinical approaches for patients willing and unwilling to quit are described. Major conclusions and recommendations include: (1) Tobacco dependence is a chronic condition that warrants repeated treatment until long-term or permanent abstinence is achieved. (2) Effective treatments for tobacco dependence exist and all tobacco users should be offered those treatments. (3) Clinicians and health care delivery systems must institutionalize the consistent identification, documentation, and treatment of every tobacco user at every visit. (4) Brief tobacco dependence treatment is effective, and every tobacco user should be offered at least brief treatment. (5) There is a strong dose-response relationship between the intensity of tobacco dependence counseling and its effectiveness. (6) Three types of counseling were found to be especially effective-practical counseling, social support as part of treatment, and social support arranged outside of treatment. (7) Five first-line pharmacotherapies for tobacco dependence-sustained-release bupropion hydrochloride, nicotine gum, nicotine inhaler, nicotine nasal spray, and nicotine patch-are effective, and at least 1 of these medications should be prescribed in the absence of contraindications. (8) Tobacco dependence treatments are cost-effective relative to other medical and disease prevention interventions; as such, all health insurance plans should include as a reimbursed benefit the counseling and pharmacotherapeutic treatments identified as effective in the updated guideline. JAMA. 2000;283:3244-3254

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1997.

PURPOSE: Cost-utility analysis is a type of cost-effectiveness analysis in which health effects are measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Such analyses have become popular for examining the health and economic consequences of health and medical interventions, and they have been recommended by leaders in the field. These recommendations emphasize the importance of good reporting practices. This study determined 1) the quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses through 1997 and 2) whether reporting practices have improved over time. We examined quality of reporting by journal type and number of cost-utility analyses a journal has published. DATA SOURCES: Computerized databases were searched through 1997 for the Medical Subject Headings or text keywords quality-adjusted, QALY, and cost-utility analysis. Published bibliographies of the field were also searched. STUDY SELECTION: Original cost-utility analyses written in English were included. Cost-effectiveness analyses that measured health effects in units other than QALYs and review, editorial, or methodologic articles were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Each of the 228 articles found was audited independently by two trained readers who used a standard data collection form to determine the quality of reporting in several categories: disclosure of funding, framing, reporting of costs, reporting of preference weights, reporting of results, and discussion. RESULTS: The number of cost-utility analyses in the medical literature increased greatly between 1976 and 1997. Analyses covered a wide range of diseases and interventions. Most studies listed modeling assumptions (82%), described the comparator intervention (83%), reported sensitivity analysis (89%), and noted study limitations (84%). Only 52% clearly stated the study perspective; 34% did not disclose the funding source. Methods of reporting costs and preference weights varied widely. The quality of published analyses improved slightly over time and was higher in general clinical journals and in journals that published more of these analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The study results reveal an active and evolving field but also underscore the need for more consistency and clarity in reporting. Better peer review and independent, third-party audits may help in this regard. Future investigations should examine the quality of clinical and economic assumptions used in cost-utility analyses, in addition to whether analysts followed recommended protocols for performance and reporting.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗