As simulation typically is resource demanding, and due to the recent focus on evidence in health care, the need to document the effectiveness and efficiency (cost-effectiveness) of simulation has become pressing.
Few studies show long-term retention of skills and knowledge, effectiveness in terms of patient outcome, or cost-effectiveness of simulation as an educational tool [ 4, 8, 9, 13].
We used a previously described individual-level simulation model (Cost Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications-International) to project strategy-specific life expectancy, the fraction of a cohort receiving treatment annually, and the fraction surviving each year in a single cohort [ 11- 14].
ART in sub-Saharan Africa costs $500 to $1000 per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted Previous estimates of the cost effectiveness of laboratory monitoring relied on computer simulation models and varied widely Adding routine monitoring of CD4 count costs $174 per DALY averted, less than for ART.
First experiences with simulation models showed that the cost effectiveness of telemedical treatment strongly depends on the collective of patients (amount, NYHA class) [27, 28].
In diabetes, several simulation models have been used to describe disease progression and estimate the cost effectiveness of interventions (21– 21).
4 Recent cost effectiveness and simulation studies 7 8 question the need for a complete ward closure.
These simulations are of relevance, as an increasing interest exists for the evaluation of cost effectiveness in subgroups of patient populations.
While these studies do only relate to direct budget effects, Brown et al. (2011) confirm the cost-effectiveness of hiring subsidies in their simulations.
A randomized trial comparing bypass and banding would provide more compelling evidence on the relative cost-effectiveness of the two procedures than our simulation provides.
Using data from the DE-PLAN-CAT study, different sub-analysis will be performed: 1. Direct and indirect cost analysis of both strategies 2. Cost-effectiveness analysis of both strategies 3. Cost utility analysis of both interventions 4. Long term modelling simulation on the cost-effectiveness of both interventions.
