Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31098558›Full record

ArticleFuture healthcare journal2018

Systems, design and value-for-money in the NHS: mission impossible?

Terry Young, Alec Morton, Sada Soorapanth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future healthcare journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Moving towards evidence-based care system design.Future healthcare journal · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Terry YoungBrunel University London, Uxbridge, UK.
Alec MortonUniversity of Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UK.
Sada SoorapanthSan Francisco State University, San Francisco, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

NHS organisations are being challenged to transform -themselves sustainably in the face of increasing demands, but they have little room for error. To manage trade-offs and risks precisely, they must integrate two very different streams of -expertise: systems approaches to service design and implementation, and economic evaluation of the type pioneered by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for pharmaceuticals and interventions. Neither approach is fully embedded in NHS service transformation, while the combination as an integrated discipline is still some way away. We share three examples to show how design methods may be deployed within a value-for-money framework to plan operationally and in terms of clinical outcomes. They are real cases briefly described and the unreferenced ones are anonymised. They have been selected by one of the authors (TY) during his sabbatical research because each illustrates a commonly observed challenge. To meet these challenges, we argue that the health economics cost / quality-adjusted life year (QALY) framework promulgated by NICE provides an under-appreciated lens for thinking about trade-offs and we highlight some systems tools which have also been under-utilised in this context.

Indexed as

cost effectiveness analysisEconomic evaluationhealth service designhealth servicesvalue assessment

Identifiers

PMID31098558
PMCPMC6502596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.