Evidence
Continuous menopause care needs evidence that follows the patient over time.

Menopathway is designed to collect clinically useful context from Vela, diagnostics, clinician review, and care-plan changes so menopause support can be measured as a pathway, not as isolated appointments.

NICE NG23 informed BMS-aligned protocols Clinician-led review Real-world outcomes
0.21
Planning utility gap used in the economic model
3m
Early pathway response checkpoint
12m
Longitudinal outcome checkpoint
EQ-5D
Health utility measurement route
Patient evidence

What is changing between reviews

Vela captures symptom severity, triggers, sleep, mood, cognition, bleeding patterns, medication response, and patient-reported goals over time.

  • Weekly check-ins and baseline assessment
  • Longitudinal symptom timeline
  • Patient context available for clinician review
Clinical evidence

What clinicians need to act safely

Menopathway Clinician connects patient history with diagnostics, care-plan decisions, safety checks, and structured follow-up notes.

  • Clinician-reviewed patterns and red-flag prompts
  • Diagnostics and biomarker context where relevant
  • Care-plan changes recorded against symptoms and goals
Evidence loop
Track, test, review, adjust, measure.

The Menopathway model is built around repeated clinical context: what was reported, what was tested, what changed, and whether the patient improved.

1
Track
Vela records symptoms, goals, and treatment response across time.
2
Test
Diagnostics are used when they can support safer decisions.
3
Review
Clinicians review the timeline, risks, and patient priorities.
4
Adjust
Care plans change with symptoms, safety context, and outcomes.
Commissioning view

What the pathway can report

  • Engagement and follow-up completion
  • Symptom trajectory and patient-reported outcome trends
  • Diagnostics utilisation and result handling
  • Medication and care-plan change history
  • Escalation, safety, and audit events
Clinical caution

Planning evidence, not a submitted NICE appraisal

QALY, ICER, and cost-offset language should be used carefully, sourced clearly, and separated from consumer claims. Formal economic submissions require full governance, data review, and appropriate external scrutiny.

Keep public claims focused on continuity, engagement, pathway quality, and clinician-led decision support unless validated evidence supports stronger outcome claims.