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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |