• Journal of The Korea Institute of Healthcare Architecture
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.41-50
• /
• 2011

This paper assesses the evidence of the built environments' impact on patients' and staff's well-being. It also introduces evidence-based design (EBD) and discusses barriers and solutions for promoting EBD. EBD is an informed approach to design by improving design decisions based on best available knowledge. Designers should provide psychologically and physically supportive environments to promote occupants' well-being. There is increasing evidence that a poorly designed environment elicits negative feelings and stress. Better design will lead to better outcomes especially when it applied to a vulnerable population such as patients, children, and the elderly. Due to high demands of promoting patients' health, healthcare providers and professional designers have been searching for evidence to create healing environments. EBD has been well received in healthcare facilities design and is expanding to other types of environmental design such as educational and commercial design. Design firms should consider EBD as a value-added component of design to meet current and future challenges. It is important for designers to realize that engaging in EBD is not a rejection of creativity, but a means by which to scrutinize their design projects. With critical literature reviews on healing environments, there is sufficient evidence that well-designed environments can promote patients' and medical staff's health outcomes.

• The Journal of Health Technology Assessment
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.156-161
• /
• 2018

Objectives: To evaluate results and workloads of the horizon scanning of the emerging health technology since 2014 to 2016. Methods: In order to analyze the results of the emerging health technology, we identified the number of research procedure between 2014 and 2016. The sixteen findings were calculated annual workload by person, and categorized by medical phase, classification of disease, and healthcare technology. Results: An average of 5.67 personnel were involved over three years, assessment of each emerging healthcare technology was performed for each person of identifying 54 cases, filtering 2.4 cases, prioritizing 0.9 cases were performed. According to the mapping by healthcare technologies, nine medical devices (56.3%), six drugs (37.5%), and one material of the medical treatment (6.3%) were assessed. Among sixteen findings, fifteen cases were health technologies for treatment and only one case for diagnosis. Conclusion: Future plans of the horizon scanning of the emerging health technology is required appropriate manpower in charge each target number of assessment. And a legal basis should be provided for policy reflection rate. Furthermore, an evaluation criteria and procedures should be transparent to avoid a conflict of interest.

• The Journal of Health Technology Assessment
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.88-94
• /
• 2018

This review aims to provide implications for relevant domestic policies and researches from Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH), a reinforcement model for primary care and its evaluations in the United States. As chronic diseases became dominant, changes in the health care delivery system in which primary care is central was required. The United States initiated primary care-reinforcing policies based on the PCMH following the increased demand for evidence-based health care policies. The current activities of the United States such as sharing research tools used to evaluate primary care interventions and circulating evaluation findings provide examples to Korea. Systematic evaluations for primary care interventions are required and appropriate methods using various types of data to reflect the real-world settings should be prepared. It is necessary to conduct policy assessment studies of public interests considering regional context. Support for the researches to make and advance from the existing environment must be examined.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.67-70
• /
• 2015

To establish an appropriate policy for robotic surgery in Korea, the National Evidence-based Collaborating Agency (NECA) and the Korean Society of Health Policy and Administration held a round-table conference (RTC) to gather opinions through a comprehensive discussion of scientific information in gastric cancer. The NECA RTC is a public discussion forum wherein experts from diverse fields and members of the lay public conduct in-depth discussions on a selected social issue in the health and medical field. For this study, representatives from the medical field, patient groups, industry, the press, and policy makers participated in a discussion focused on the medical and scientific evidence for the use of robotic surgery in gastric cancer. According to the RTC results, robotic surgery showed more favorable results in safety and efficacy than open surgery and it is similar to laparoscopy. When the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery and laparoscopy is compared, robotic surgery costs are higher but there was no difference between the two of them in terms of effectiveness (pain, quality of life, complications, etc.). In order to resolve the high cost issue of the robotic surgery, a proper policy should be implemented to facilitate the development of a cost-effective model of the robotic surgery equipment. The higher cost of robotic surgery require more evidence of its safety and efficacy as well as the cost-effectiveness issues of this method. Discussions on the national insurance coverage of robotic surgery seems to be necessary in the near future.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.15 no.8
• /
• pp.3383-3389
• /
• 2014

Background: Prostate cancer is rapidly increasing in Korea and professional societies have requested adding prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing to the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP), but this started a controversy in Korea and neutral evidence on this issue is required more than ever. The purpose of this study was to provide economic evidence to the decision makers of the NCSP. Materials and Methods: A cost-utility analysis was performed on the adoption of PSA screening program among men aged 50-74-years in Korea from the healthcare system perspective. Several data sources were used for the cost-utility analysis, including general health screening data, the Korea Central Cancer Registry, national insurance claims data, and cause of mortality from the National Statistical Office. To solicit the utility index of prostate cancer, a face-to-face interview for typical men aged 40 to 69 was conducted using a Time-Trade Off method. Results: As a result, the increase of effectiveness was estimated to be very low, when adopting PSA screening, and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was analyzed as about 94 million KRW. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the incidence rate, screening rate, cancer stage distribution, utility index, and treatment costs but the results were consistent with the base analysis. Conclusions: Under Korean circumstances with a relatively low incidence rate of prostate cancer, PSA screening is not cost-effective. Therefore, we conclude that adopting national prostate cancer screening would not be beneficial until further evidence is provided in the future.

• CELLMED
• /
• v.6 no.3
• /
• pp.15.1-15.4
• /
• 2016

Evidence based practice (EBP) is a system of applying the most current and valid high quality evidence to support clinical decision making in a healthcare setting. In the twenty five years since its inception, EBP has become the accepted benchmark for excellence in healthcare. Although the system emerged within the biomedical sciences, in the years since EBP has become normative across all healthcare modalities from dentistry, allied health to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Practicing evidence based medicine within any modality potentially offers the patient the best available care based on high quality evidence. Yet it is the nature of the evidence that provokes some questions about the suitability of EBP across all modalities of healthcare. The meta analysis of randomized controlled trial (RCT) stands at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of evidence in EBP. This forms a challenge to CAM due to the difficulty in reducing the elementals of a holistic naturopathic assessment of a patient into an answerable question to be tested within a RCT. On one level this makes EBP paradigmatically incompatible with CAM, yet on another level it presents the opportunity to redefine the parameters of what is considered high level evidence. EBP has become a tool, and at times a weapon wielded by governments and health insurance companies to direct healthcare funding and policy. The implications of the nature of accepted evidence are becoming far reaching. The pursuit of the best available healthcare for each individual is the focus of EBP. However, the injudicious use of this system to direct health policy is fraught with biomedical bias and dominance. This issue raises the challenge to CAM to present high level evidence according to the rules of evidence, or face the annihilation of centuries of empirical knowledge.

• Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
• /
• v.55 no.5
• /
• pp.415-423
• /
• 2022

Economic evaluations in the healthcare are used to assess economic efficiency of pharmaceuticals and medical interventions such as diagnoses and medical procedures. This study introduces the main concepts of economic evaluation across its key steps: planning, outcome and cost calculation, modeling, cost-effectiveness results, uncertainty analysis, and decision-making. When planning an economic evaluation, we determine the study population, intervention, comparators, perspectives, time horizon, discount rates, and type of economic evaluation. In healthcare economic evaluations, outcomes include changes in mortality, the survival rate, life years, and quality-adjusted life years, while costs include medical, non-medical, and productivity costs. Model-based economic evaluations, including decision tree and Markov models, are mainly used to calculate the total costs and total effects. In cost-effectiveness or costutility analyses, cost-effectiveness is evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which is the additional cost per one additional unit of effectiveness gained by an intervention compared with a comparator. All outcomes have uncertainties owing to limited evidence, diverse methodologies, and unexplained variation. Thus, researchers should review these uncertainties and confirm their robustness. We hope to contribute to the establishment and dissemination of economic evaluation methodologies that reflect Korean clinical and research environment and ultimately improve the rationality of healthcare policies.

• Quality Improvement in Health Care
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.57-61
• /
• 2010

• The Journal of Health Technology Assessment
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.95-99
• /
• 2018

As technologies develop, the digital health sector is gradually expanding. Internationally, the global summit for Digital Health named Global Digital Health Partnership (GDHP) was launched in 2018. Many countries are participating in GDHP and share their policy experiences on digital health and find the ways to cooperate with participating countries (13 countries, including South Korea, and Hong Kong). This article reviewed the international trends in digital health policy environment and evidence assessment focusing on GDHP activities, and derived implications for health technology assessment of digital health. Consequently, to assess the intervention effects of digital health is very complex and the assessment should be considered multidimensional aspects (social, clinical, and technical). In addition the patient experience should be assessed qualitatively. Health technology assessment (HTA) should assess the effect of digital health policies to changes in health care systems resulting from the application of advanced technologies related to the 4th Industrial Revolution. Digital health is also related to new HTA, HTA of existing technologies, and R&D on the promising health technology. Therefore, it is necessary to review the trends of the technology's management policy consistently through the HTA of digital health.

• Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.361-375
• /
• 2018

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting injectable (LAI) and oral second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in treating schizophrenia by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, as well as five Korean databases, were systemically searched to identify studies published from 2000 to 16 April 2015, which compared the efficacy and safety of LAI and oral SGAs. Using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses were conducted. In addition, the GRADE (the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was applied to explicitly assess the quality of the evidence. A total of 30 studies including 17 RCTs and 13 observational studies were selected. The group treated with LAI SGAs was characterized by significantly lower relapse rates, longer times to relapse and fewer hospital days, but also by a higher occurrence of extrapyramidal syndrome and prolactin-related symptoms than that in the group treated with oral SGAs. Our findings demonstrate that there is moderate to high level of evidence suggesting that in the treatment of schizophrenia, LAI SGAs have higher efficacy and are associated with higher rates of extrapyramidal syndrome and prolactin-related symptoms. Additionally, the use of LAI SGAs should be combined with appropriate measures to reduce dopamine $D_2$ antagonism-related symptoms.