Open Content

저널 More An economic evaluation of Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture sessions for patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized trial (ATLAS) Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture and usual care, and Alexander Technique lessons and usual care, compared with usual GP care alone for chronic neck pain patients. Methods: An economic evaluation was undertaken alongside the ATLAS trial, taking both NHS and wider societal viewpoints. Participants were offered up to twelve acupuncture sessions or twenty Alexander lessons (equivalent overall contact time). Costs were in pounds sterling. Effectiveness was measured using the generic EQ-5D to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as using a specific neck pain measure–the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). Results: In the base case analysis, incremental QALY gains were 0.032 and 0.025 in the acupuncture and Alexander groups, respectively, in comparison to usual GP care, indicating moderate health benefits for both interventions. Incremental costs were £451 for acupuncture and £667 for Alexander, mainly driven by intervention costs. Acupuncture was likely to be cost-effective (ICER = £18,767/QALY bootstrapped 95% CI £4,426 to £74,562) and was robust to most sensitivity analyses. Alexander lessons were not cost-effective at the lower NICE threshold of £20,000/QALY (£25,101/QALY bootstrapped 95% CI -£150,208 to £248,697) but may be at £30,000/QALY, however, there was considerable statistical uncertainty in all tested scenarios. Conclusions: In comparison with usual care, acupuncture is likely to be cost-effective for chronic neck pain, whereas, largely due to higher intervention costs, Alexander lessons are unlikely to be cost-effective. However, there were high levels of missing data and further research is needed to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of these interventions.
연구과제 More Re-entry to Active Research Program The Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET) is conducting a Re-entry to Active Research (RARE) program to reengage, retrain, and broaden participation within the academic workforce. The primary objective of the RARE program is to catalyze the advancement along the academic tenure-track of highly meritorious individuals who are returning from a hiatus from active research. By providing re-entry points to active academic research, the RARE program will reinvest in the nation&rsquo;s most highly trained scientists and engineers, while broadening participation and increasing diversity of experience. A RARE research proposal must describe potentially transformative research that falls within the scope of participating <a href="">CBET programs</a>. The RARE program includes two Tracks to catalyze the advancement of investigators along the academic tenure system after a research hiatus, either to a tenure-track position or to a higher-tenured academic rank. Track 1 of the RARE program reengages investigators in a competitive funding opportunity with accommodations for gap in record that are a result of the research hiatus. A Track 1 proposal will follow the budgetary guidelines of the relevant CBET program for an unsolicited research proposal. Track 2 retrains investigators for whom the research hiatus has led to the need for new or updated techniques, such that retraining is required to return the investigator to competitive research activity. A description of how these new techniques will lead to competitive research in CBET programs is required. A Track 2 proposal budget will include only funds necessary for specific retraining activities, such as travel to a workshop or conference, workshop registration fees, a retraining sabbatical, or seed funding to support collection of preliminary data (including salary support, equipment usage fees, materials, and/or supplies). General inquiries regarding this program should be made to: <a href="mailto:RAREquestions@NSF.GOV">RAREquestions@NSF.GOV</a> or a RARE Program Officer listed below.