groups was small compared with other costs in the analysis, and the association
between costs, intervention group and time period were unclear, the differences were
not included in the base case economic evaluation findings.
The costs of training staff and ongoing activity under DCM and PCC are shown in
Table 3. Since the pharmaceutical cost data were not significantly different between
intervention groups, they are not listed as a cost difference (this issue will be
investigated in the sensitivity analysis). Costs associated with critical incidents, or
general doctor time were not included as there was uncertainty regarding the
comparability of data collection methods in these areas.
More intriguing information
1. FDI Implications of Recent European Court of Justice Decision on Corporation Tax Matters2. Regional Intergration and Migration: An Economic Geography Model with Hetergenous Labour Force
3. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE ECONOMETRIC PACKAGES: AN APPLICATION TO ITALIAN DEPOSIT INTEREST RATES
4. Asymmetric transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect between first- and second-order cues and among different second-order cues
5. American trade policy towards Sub Saharan Africa –- a meta analysis of AGOA
6. THE MEXICAN HOG INDUSTRY: MOVING BEYOND 2003
7. TLRP: academic challenges for moral purposes
8. Nonparametric cointegration analysis
9. On Evolution of God-Seeking Mind
10. Unilateral Actions the Case of International Environmental Problems