Cardiovascular medicine
Measuring the costs and benefits of heart disease monitoring
A Perrya, S Capewell, A Walkerb, J Chalmersc, A Redpathc, K Majore, C E Morrisonb, N Craiga, S Cobbed, W C S Smithf
a Department of Public
Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow 12, UK, b Department of Public Health,
University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB, UK
Greater Glasgow Health Board, 350 St Vincent St,
Glasgow 3, UK, c Information and Statistics Division, Trinity
Park House, Edinburgh 5, UK, d Department of Medical Cardiology, Glasgow
Royal Infirmary, Glasgow 31, UK, e Department of Public Health, Ayrshire & Arran Health Board, Ayr, UK, f Department of Public Health, University of
Aberdeen, Aberdeen 25, UK
Correspondence to: Dr Capewell email: capewell{at}liverpool.ac.uk
Accepted 31 January
2000
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the costs and
benefits of alternative systems of coronary heart disease monitoring in Scotland.
DESIGN
An option appraisal was
conducted to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing a coronary
heart disease monitoring system. This involved a review of existing
Scottish datasets and relevant reports, specification of options,
definition and weighting of benefit criteria by key stakeholders,
assessment of options by experts, and costing of options. The options
were assessed by 33 stakeholders (grouped as cardiologists, patient
representatives, general practitioners, public health physicians, and
policy makers), plus 13 topic experts.
SETTING
Scotland (population 5.1 million).
RESULTS
Between group mean benefit
weights were: mortality rates and case fatality (10.6), quality of life
(9.8), patient function (8.8), hospital activity (7.8), primary care
activity (9.25), prescribing (5.72), socioeconomic impact (4.0), risk
factors (7.4), prevalence (5.0), incidence (6.0), case registration
(6.82), international comparability (4.2), breadth of coverage (8.8),
and frequency (5.8). Differences between group weights were significant
for prevalence (p = 0.048) and international comparability
(p = 0.032). Four monitoring options were identified: a
community epidemiology model, based on
MONICA (monitoring trends and determinants in cardiovascular disease)
study methodology applied to a series of eight representative
communities, had the highest benefits, at an average annual discounted
cost of approximately £360 000; models based on the
Australian cardiovascular disease monitoring scheme and on enhanced routine data
offered fewer benefits at discounted average annual costs ranging from
£165 000 to £195 000; finally, a coronary heart
disease registry modelled on the Scottish Cancer Registry scheme
would have had fewer benefits and substantially higher costs than the
other options.
CONCLUSIONS
The most beneficial
coronary heart disease monitoring system is the community epidemiology
model, based on MONICA methodology. Option appraisal potentially offers
an explicit and transparent methodology for evidence based policy development.
Keywords: monitoring; surveillance; heart disease; option appraisal
© 2000 by Heart
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
