Cargando…

A case study of cost‐benefit analysis in occupational radiological protection within the healthcare system of Sweden

The aim of the present study was to demonstrate cases of cost‐benefit analysis within healthcare, of how economic factors can be considered in occupational radiological protection, in agreement with the as low as reasonably achievable principle and present Swedish legislations. In the first part of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Engström, Andreas, Isaksson, Mats, Javid, Reza, Lundh, Charlotta, Båth, Magnus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504601/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34505345
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13421
_version_ 1784581352244379648
author Engström, Andreas
Isaksson, Mats
Javid, Reza
Lundh, Charlotta
Båth, Magnus
author_facet Engström, Andreas
Isaksson, Mats
Javid, Reza
Lundh, Charlotta
Båth, Magnus
author_sort Engström, Andreas
collection PubMed
description The aim of the present study was to demonstrate cases of cost‐benefit analysis within healthcare, of how economic factors can be considered in occupational radiological protection, in agreement with the as low as reasonably achievable principle and present Swedish legislations. In the first part of the present study, a comparison of examples within health economics used by authorities and institutes in Sweden was made. The comparison focused on value of a statistical life, quality‐adjusted life year, and monetary cost assigned to a unit of collective dose for radiation protection purposes (α‐value). By this comparison, an α‐value was determined as an interval between $45 and $450 per man‐mSv, for the Swedish society in 2021. The α‐value interval can be interpreted as following: 1. Less than $45 per man‐mSv is a good investment. 2. From $45 to $450 per man‐mSv, other factors than costs and collective dose are important to consider. 3. More than $450 per man‐mSv is too expensive. In the second part of the present study, seven cases of cost‐benefit analyses in occupational radiological protection were provided. The present study focused specifically on cases where the relevant factors were costs and collective dose. The present case study shows a large variation in costs per collective dose from different types of occupational radiological protection, used at Skaraborg Hospital in Sweden.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8504601
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85046012021-10-18 A case study of cost‐benefit analysis in occupational radiological protection within the healthcare system of Sweden Engström, Andreas Isaksson, Mats Javid, Reza Lundh, Charlotta Båth, Magnus J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Protection & Regulations The aim of the present study was to demonstrate cases of cost‐benefit analysis within healthcare, of how economic factors can be considered in occupational radiological protection, in agreement with the as low as reasonably achievable principle and present Swedish legislations. In the first part of the present study, a comparison of examples within health economics used by authorities and institutes in Sweden was made. The comparison focused on value of a statistical life, quality‐adjusted life year, and monetary cost assigned to a unit of collective dose for radiation protection purposes (α‐value). By this comparison, an α‐value was determined as an interval between $45 and $450 per man‐mSv, for the Swedish society in 2021. The α‐value interval can be interpreted as following: 1. Less than $45 per man‐mSv is a good investment. 2. From $45 to $450 per man‐mSv, other factors than costs and collective dose are important to consider. 3. More than $450 per man‐mSv is too expensive. In the second part of the present study, seven cases of cost‐benefit analyses in occupational radiological protection were provided. The present study focused specifically on cases where the relevant factors were costs and collective dose. The present case study shows a large variation in costs per collective dose from different types of occupational radiological protection, used at Skaraborg Hospital in Sweden. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-09-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8504601/ /pubmed/34505345 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13421 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Protection & Regulations
Engström, Andreas
Isaksson, Mats
Javid, Reza
Lundh, Charlotta
Båth, Magnus
A case study of cost‐benefit analysis in occupational radiological protection within the healthcare system of Sweden
title A case study of cost‐benefit analysis in occupational radiological protection within the healthcare system of Sweden
title_full A case study of cost‐benefit analysis in occupational radiological protection within the healthcare system of Sweden
title_fullStr A case study of cost‐benefit analysis in occupational radiological protection within the healthcare system of Sweden
title_full_unstemmed A case study of cost‐benefit analysis in occupational radiological protection within the healthcare system of Sweden
title_short A case study of cost‐benefit analysis in occupational radiological protection within the healthcare system of Sweden
title_sort case study of cost‐benefit analysis in occupational radiological protection within the healthcare system of sweden
topic Radiation Protection & Regulations
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504601/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34505345
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13421
work_keys_str_mv AT engstromandreas acasestudyofcostbenefitanalysisinoccupationalradiologicalprotectionwithinthehealthcaresystemofsweden
AT isakssonmats acasestudyofcostbenefitanalysisinoccupationalradiologicalprotectionwithinthehealthcaresystemofsweden
AT javidreza acasestudyofcostbenefitanalysisinoccupationalradiologicalprotectionwithinthehealthcaresystemofsweden
AT lundhcharlotta acasestudyofcostbenefitanalysisinoccupationalradiologicalprotectionwithinthehealthcaresystemofsweden
AT bathmagnus acasestudyofcostbenefitanalysisinoccupationalradiologicalprotectionwithinthehealthcaresystemofsweden
AT engstromandreas casestudyofcostbenefitanalysisinoccupationalradiologicalprotectionwithinthehealthcaresystemofsweden
AT isakssonmats casestudyofcostbenefitanalysisinoccupationalradiologicalprotectionwithinthehealthcaresystemofsweden
AT javidreza casestudyofcostbenefitanalysisinoccupationalradiologicalprotectionwithinthehealthcaresystemofsweden
AT lundhcharlotta casestudyofcostbenefitanalysisinoccupationalradiologicalprotectionwithinthehealthcaresystemofsweden
AT bathmagnus casestudyofcostbenefitanalysisinoccupationalradiologicalprotectionwithinthehealthcaresystemofsweden