2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemEffect on healthcare utilization and costs of spinal manual therapy for acute low back pain in routine care: A propensity score matched cohort study(San Francisco, California, US : PLOS, 2017) Walker, Jochen; Mertens, Ulf Kai; Schmidt, Carsten Oliver; Chenot, Jean-FrançoisSpinal manual therapy (SMT) is a popular treatment option for low back pain (LBP). The aim of our analysis was to evaluate the effects of manual therapy delivered by general practitioners and ambulatory orthopedic surgeons in routine care on follow up consultations, sick leave, health service utilization and costs for acute LBP compared to matched patients not receiving manual therapy. This is a propensity score matched cohort study based on health claims data. We identified a total of 113.652 adult patients with acute LBP and no coded red flags of whom 21.021 (18%) received SMT by physicians. In the final analysis 17.965 patients in each group could be matched. Balance on patients' coded characteristics, comorbidity and prior health service utilization was achieved. The provision of SMT for acute LBP had no relevant impact on follow up visits and days of sick leave for LBP in the index billing period and the following year. SMT was associated with a higher proportion of imaging studies for LBP (30.6% vs. 23%, SMD: 0.164 [95% CI 0.143-0.185]). SMT did not lead to meaningful savings by replacing other health services for LBP. SMT for acute non-specific LBP in routine care was not clinically meaningful effective to reduce sick leave and reconsultation rates compared to no SMT and did not lead to meaningful savings by replacing other health services from the perspective of health insurance. This does not imply that SMT is ineffective but might reflect a problem with selection of suitable patients and the quality and quantity of SMT in routine care. National Manual Medicine societies should state clearly that imaging is not routinely needed prior to SMT in patients with low suspicion of presence of red flags and monitor the quality of provided services.
- ItemPopulation ageing and deaths attributable to ambient PM2·5 pollution: a global analysis of economic cost(Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2021) Yin, Hao; Brauer, Michael; Zhang, Junfeng (Jim); Cai, Wenjia; Navrud, Ståle; Burnett, Richard; Howard, Courtney; Deng, Zhu; Kammen, Daniel M.; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim; Chen, Kai; Kan, Haidong; Chen, Zhan-Ming; Chen, Bin; Zhang, Ning; Mi, Zhifu; Coffman, D'Maris; Cohen, Aaron J.; Guan, Dabo; Zhang, Qiang; Gong, Peng; Liu, ZhuBackground: The health impacts of ambient air pollution impose large costs on society. Although all people are exposed to air pollution, the older population (ie, those aged ≥60 years) tends to be disproportionally affected. As a result, there is growing concern about the health impacts of air pollution as many countries undergo rapid population ageing. We investigated the spatial and temporal variation in the economic cost of deaths attributable to ambient air pollution and its interaction with population ageing from 2000 to 2016 at global and regional levels. Methods: In this global analysis, we developed an age-adjusted measure of the value of a statistical life-year (VSLY) to estimate the economic cost of deaths attributable to ambient PM2·5 pollution using Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 data and country-level socioeconomic information. First, we estimated the global age-specific and cause-specific mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) attributable to PM2·5 pollution using the global exposure mortality model and global estimates of exposure at 0·1° × 0·1° (about 11 km × 11 km at the equator) resolution. Second, for each year between 2000 and 2016, we translated the YLLs within each age group into a health-related cost using a country-specific, age-adjusted measure of VSLY. Third, we decomposed the major driving factors that contributed to the temporal change in health costs related to PM2·5. Finally, we did a sensitivity test to analyse the variability of the estimated health costs to four alternative valuation measures. We identified the uncertainty intervals (UIs) from 1000 draws of the parameters and concentration–response functions by age, cause, country, and year. All economic values are reported in 2011 purchasing power parity-adjusted US dollars. All simulations were done with R, version 3.6.0. Findings: Globally, in 2016, PM2·5 was estimated to have caused 8·42 million (95% UI 6·50–10·52) attributable deaths, which was associated with 163·68 million (116·03–219·44) YLLs. In 2016, the global economic cost of deaths attributable to ambient PM2·5 pollution for the older population was US$2·40 trillion (1·89–2·93) accounting for 59% (59–60) of the cost for the total population ($4·09 trillion [3·19–5·05]). The economic cost per capita for the older population was $2739 (2160–3345) in 2016, which was 10 times that of the younger population (ie, those aged <60 years). By assessing the factors that contributed to economic costs, we found that increases in these factors changed the total economic cost by 77% for gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, 21% for population ageing, 16% for population growth, −41% for age-specific mortality, and −0·4% for PM2·5 exposure. Interpretation: The economic cost of ambient PM2·5 borne by the older population almost doubled between 2000 and 2016, driven primarily by GDP growth, population ageing, and population growth. Compared with younger people, air pollution leads to disproportionately higher health costs among older people, even after accounting for their relatively shorter life expectancy and increased disability. As the world's population is ageing, the disproportionate health cost attributable to ambient PM2·5 pollution potentially widens the health inequities for older people. Countries with severe air pollution and rapid ageing rates need to take immediate actions to improve air quality. In addition, strategies aimed at enhancing health-care services, especially targeting the older population, could be beneficial for reducing the health costs of ambient air pollution. Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Qiushi Foundation.