Suppr超能文献

一项评估长期家庭氧疗资格策略的随机试验。

A randomized trial of strategies for assessing eligibility for long-term domiciliary oxygen therapy.

作者信息

Guyatt Gordon H, Nonoyama Mika, Lacchetti Christina, Goeree Ron, McKim Douglas, Heels-Ansdell Diane, Goldstein Roger

机构信息

Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

出版信息

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005 Sep 1;172(5):573-80. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200412-1692OC. Epub 2005 May 18.

Abstract

RATIONALE

Restricting oxygen administration to those who benefit is desirable.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of alternative strategies for assessing eligibility for domiciliary oxygen on funded oxygen use, quality of life, and costs.

METHODS

We randomized applicants for domiciliary oxygen therapy to an assessment system that relied on data collected by oxygen providers at the time of application and judgments by Home Oxygen Program personnel (conventional assessment) or to a system of data collection by a respiratory therapist that included, in patients unstable at the time of initial assessment, a repeat assessment after 2 months of stability (alternative assessment).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 276 applicants were allocated to the conventional arm and 270 to the alternative assessment. In the year after application, oxygen use was lower in the alternative arm with no between-group differences in mortality, quality of life, or resource use in the community. Although alternative assessment applicants had on average higher assessment costs by dollars Canadian 155 per applicant, these costs were more than offset by decreased Home Oxygen Program costs of dollars Canadian 596 per applicant using Canadian cost weights. The comparable U.S. dollar figures were dollars US 309 and dollars US 432, respectively, and the difference in cost between strategies was therefore smaller using U.S. cost weights.

CONCLUSIONS

Reassessment of applicants for domiciliary oxygen after several months of stability identifies an appreciable portion of initially eligible patients who are no longer eligible, thus reducing program costs to public funders without adverse consequences on quality of life, mortality, or other resource use.

摘要

原理

将氧气供应限制在那些能从中受益的人身上是可取的。

目的

确定评估家庭氧疗资格的替代策略对资助的氧气使用、生活质量和成本的影响。

方法

我们将家庭氧疗申请者随机分为两组,一组采用依赖氧气供应商在申请时收集的数据和家庭氧气项目人员的判断的评估系统(传统评估),另一组采用呼吸治疗师的数据收集系统,该系统在初次评估时不稳定的患者中,在稳定2个月后进行重复评估(替代评估)。

测量和主要结果

共有276名申请者被分配到传统评估组,270名被分配到替代评估组。在申请后的一年里,替代评估组的氧气使用量较低,两组在死亡率、生活质量或社区资源使用方面没有差异。虽然替代评估的申请者平均每位申请者的评估成本高出加拿大元155,但使用加拿大成本权重计算,每位申请者家庭氧气项目成本减少加拿大元596,足以抵消这些成本。可比的美元数字分别为309美元和432美元,因此使用美国成本权重计算,两种策略之间的成本差异较小。

结论

在稳定几个月后对家庭氧疗申请者进行重新评估,可识别出相当一部分最初符合条件但不再符合条件的患者,从而降低公共资助者的项目成本,且对生活质量、死亡率或其他资源使用没有不利影响。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验