RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: In the midst of the opioid overdose crisis, local jurisdictions face a choice of public health interventions. A significant barrier when considering evidence-based practices (EBPs) is the lack of information regarding their implementation cost. This protocol paper provides the methodological foundation for the economic cost evaluations of community-wide strategies on the scale of a national study. It can serve as a resource for other communities, local policymakers, and stakeholders as they consider implementing possible public health strategies in their unique settings. METHODS: We present a protocol that details (1) the process of identifying, reviewing, and analyzing individual strategies for study-funded and non-study-funded costs; (2) prospective costing tool designation, and; (3) data collection. To do this, we set up working groups with community stakeholders, reviewed financial invoices, and surveyed individuals with detailed knowledge of their community implementation. DISCUSSION: There were 3 main challenges/limitations. The first was the lack of a standard structure for documenting nonfunded costs associated with each strategy. The second was the need for timely implementation of cost data. The third was generalizability because our study designed its strategies for selected communities due to their high opioid overdose mortality rates. Future steps include more tailored questions to ask during the categorization/filter process and establishing realistic expectations for organizations regarding documenting. CONCLUSIONS: Data collected will provide a critical methodological foundation for costing large community-based EBP strategies and provide clarity for stakeholders on the cost of implementing EBP strategies to reduce opioid overdose deaths.
Asunto(s)
Sobredosis de Droga , Sobredosis de Opiáceos , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Sobredosis de Droga/prevención & control , Salud Pública , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia/métodosRESUMEN
Malignant gliomas (MG) are very aggressive tumors. In an effort to improve the outcome, the patients receive multi-modal therapies such as surgery, radiation and chemotherapy (temozolomide followed in many cases by bevacizumab). The survivors are affected by multiple learning and memory deficits. Greater deterioration over time in hippocampal specific cognitive tasks was shown in patients receiving bevacizumab in addition to radiation and temozolomide for a longer period of time (RTOG 0825). The rate of hippocampal atrophy in patients treated with radiation and temozolomide followed by bevacizumab is not yet determined, and is the goal of the present study. We used the serial MRIs obtained as parts of standard clinical care in patients with MG. Measurements were done using the Medical Image Processing, Analysis and Visualization (MIPAV) software. The hippocampus in the contralateral hemisphere was manually traced and measured, to avoid morphological structure changes induced by the tumor, radiation fields or surgical markers. We determined a longitudinal progression of hippocampal atrophy-with the maximum volume loss (33.26 %) for the patients that were on treatment for 5 years. There was no detectable hippocampal atrophy during the chemo-radiation followed by adjuvant temozolomide. A significant decrease in the absolute hippocampus volume was noted after 6 months of continuous bevacizumab treatment (p < 0.05). The hippocampal volume loss progressed over the next 3 years, and was higher than the one previously reported in Alzheimer disease patients. The hippocampal volume loss is minimal during the 1 month after diagnosis, when the patients receive chemo-radiation and adjuvant temozolomide. However, prolonged treatment including bevacizumab is associated with a significant rate of hippocampal volume loss.