Objectives Hospice use reduces costly aggressive end-of-life (EOL) care (eg, repeated hospitalizations, intensive care unit care, and emergency department visits). Nevertheless, associations between hospice stays and EOL expenditures in prior research have been inconsistent. We examined the differential associations between hospice stay duration and EOL expenditures among newly diagnosed patients with cancer, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and dementia. Methods In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, we identified 240 246 decedents diagnosed with the aforementioned conditions during 2001 to 2013. We used zero-inflated negative binomial regression models to examine the differential associations between hospice length of services and EOL expenditures incurred during the last 90, 180, and 360 days of life. Results For the last 360 days of expenditures, hospice stays beyond 30 days were positively associated with expenditures for decedents with COPD, CHF, and dementia but were negatively associated for cancer decedents (all P less then .001) after adjusting for demographic and medical covariates. In contrast, for the last 90 days of expenditures, hospice stay duration and expenditures were consistently negatively associated for each of the 4 patient disease groups. Conclusions Longer hospice stays were associated with lower 360-day expenditures for cancer patients but higher expenditures for other patients. We recommend that Medicare hospice payment reforms take distinct disease trajectories into account. The relationship between expenditures and hospice stay length also depended on the measurement duration, such that measuring expenditures for the last 6 months of life or less overstates the cost-saving benefit of lengthy hospice stays.Objectives Value and health technology assessment (V/HTA) is often used in clinical, access, and reimbursement decisions. V/HTA data-source selection may not be transparent, which is a necessary element for stakeholder understanding and trust and for fostering accountability among decision makers. Peer review is considered one mechanism for judging data trustworthiness. Our objective was (1) to use publicly available documentation of V/HTA methods to identify requirements for inclusion of peer-reviewed evidence sources, (2) to compare and contrast US and non-US approaches, and (3) to assess evidence sources used in published V/HTA reports. Methods Publicly available methods documentation from 11 V/HTA organizations in North America and Europe were manually searched and abstracted for descriptions of requirements and recommendations regarding search strategy and evidence-source selection. The bibliographies of a subset of V/HTA reports published in 2018 were manually abstracted for evidence-source types used in each. Results Heterogeneity in evidence-source retrieval and selection was observed across all V/HTA organizations, with more pronounced differences between US and non-US organizations. Not all documentation of organizations' methods address the evidence-source selection processes (7 of 11), and few explicitly reference peer-reviewed sources (3 of 11). Documentation of the evidence-source selection strategy was inconsistent across reports (6 of 13), and the level of detail provided varied across organizations. Some information on evidence-source selection was often included in confidential documentation and was not publicly available. Conclusions Disparities exist among V/HTA organizations in requirements and guidance regarding evidence-source selection. Standardization of evidence-source selection strategies and documentation could help improve V/HTA transparency and has implications for decision making based on report findings.Objectives Lack of clarity on the definition of "patient engagement" has been highlighted as a barrier to fully implementing patient engagement in research. This study identified themes within existing definitions related to patient engagement and proposes a consensus definition of "patient engagement in research." Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify definitions of patient engagement and related terms in published literature (2006-2018). Definitions were extracted and qualitatively analyzed to identify themes and characteristics.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/gsk3787.html  A multistakeholder approach, including academia, industry, and patient representation, was taken at all stages. A proposed definition is offered based on a synthesis of the findings. Results Of 1821 abstracts identified and screened for eligibility, 317 were selected for full-text review. Of these, 169 articles met inclusion criteria, from which 244 distinct definitions were extracted for analysis. The most frequently defined terms were "patient-centered" (30.5%), "patient engagement" (15.5%), and "patient participation" (13.4%). The majority of definitions were specific to the healthcare delivery setting (70.5%); 11.9% were specific to research. Among the definitions of "patient engagement," the most common themes were "active process," "patient involvement," and "patient as participant." In the research setting, the top themes were "patient as partner," "patient involvement," and "active process"; these did not appear in the top 3 themes of nonresearch definitions. Conclusion Distinct themes are associated with the term "patient engagement" and with engagement in the "research" setting. Based on an analysis of existing literature and review by patient, industry, and academic stakeholders, we propose a scalable consensus definition of "patient engagement in research."Background With continuous global COVID-19 outbreak, differing case numbers and mortality rates are observed. While actual case numbers appear vague, mortality numbers related to COVID-19 seem more precise. In this study, we used the mortality rate as the main indicator to evaluate the extent of underreporting and underdetection of COVID-19 cases. Methods We have analyzed all available data provided by the World Health Organization on the development of international COVID-19 cases and mortality numbers on March 17th, 2020. A crude case-fatality risk (cCFR) and adjusted case-fatality risk (aCFR) was calculated for China, South Korea, Japan, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Iran and the United States. Additionally, a fold-change (FC) was derived for each country. Results The highest aCFR and FC were detected for Spain. Based on their FC values, an extremely high number of undetected COVID-19 cases was displayed in France, the United States, Italy and Spain. For these countries, our findings indicate a detection rate of only 1-2% of total actual COVID-19 cases.