Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2000 Jun;83(6):651-6.
doi: 10.1136/heart.83.6.651.

Measuring the costs and benefits of heart disease monitoring

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Measuring the costs and benefits of heart disease monitoring

A Perry et al. Heart. 2000 Jun.

Abstract

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 pound 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 pound 165,000 to pound 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Four highest scoring monitoring options: estimated average annual costs (based on 10 year forecast and 6% annual discount rate). CHD, coronary heart disease; QoL, quality of life; PF, patient function surveys; RF, risk factor surveys.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Am J Epidemiol. 1985 Aug;122(2):323-34 - PubMed
    1. R I Med J. 1987 Dec;70(12):533-8 - PubMed
    1. Health Bull (Edinb). 1991 Jan;49(1):34-9 - PubMed
    1. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1963 May 22;107:539-56 - PubMed
    1. Health Econ. 1994 Mar-Apr;3(2):95-104 - PubMed

Publication types