关于用于测量与护理相关结果的基于偏好的工具及其在姑息治疗环境中的适用性的系统评价方案。

Protocol for a systematic review of preference-based instruments for measuring care-related outcomes and their suitability for the palliative care setting.

作者信息

McCaffrey Nikki, Al-Janabi Hareth, Currow David, Hoefman Renske, Ratcliffe Julie

机构信息

Palliative and Supportive Services, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia Flinders Health Economics Group, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.

Health Economics Unit, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 12;6(9):e012181. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012181.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012181

PMID:27619829

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5030581/

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Despite informal caregivers' integral role in supporting people affected by disease or disability, economic evaluations often ignore the costs and benefits experienced by this group, especially in the palliative setting. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify preference-based instruments for measuring care-related outcomes and provide guidance on the selection of instrument in palliative care economic evaluations.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A comprehensive search of the literature will be conducted from database inception (ASSIA; CINAHL; Cochrane library including DARE, NHS EED, HTA; Econlit; Embase; PsychINFO; PubMed). Published peer-reviewed, English-language articles reporting preference-based instruments for measuring care-related outcomes in any clinical area will be included. One researcher will complete the searches and screen the results for potentially eligible studies. A randomly selected subset of 10% citations will be independently screened by two researchers. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus among the research team. Subsequently, a supplementary search will identify studies detailing the development, valuation, validation and application of the identified instruments. The degree of suitability of the instruments for palliative economic evaluations will be assessed using criteria in the International Society for Quality of Life Research minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures, the checklist for reporting valuation studies of multiattribute utility-based instruments and information on the development of the instrument in the palliative setting. A narrative summary of the included studies and instruments will be provided; similarities and differences will be described and possible reasons for variations explored. Recommendations for practice on selection of instruments in palliative care economic analyses will be provided.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This is a planned systematic review of published literature. Therefore, ethics approval to conduct this research is not required. Findings will be presented at leading palliative care and health economic conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016034188.

摘要

引言

尽管非正式照护者在支持患病或残疾人士方面发挥着不可或缺的作用，但经济评估往往忽视了这一群体所经历的成本和收益，尤其是在姑息治疗环境中。本系统评价的目的是识别用于测量与照护相关结局的基于偏好的工具，并为姑息治疗经济评估中工具的选择提供指导。

方法与分析

将从数据库创建之初（ASSIA；CINAHL；Cochrane图书馆，包括DARE、NHS EED、HTA；Econlit；Embase；PsychINFO；PubMed）开始全面检索文献。纳入已发表的、经过同行评审的英文文章，这些文章报告了在任何临床领域中用于测量与照护相关结局的基于偏好的工具。一名研究人员将完成检索并筛选结果以找出潜在符合条件的研究。将由两名研究人员独立筛选随机抽取的10%的引用文献子集。任何分歧将通过研究团队的共识来解决。随后，进行补充检索以识别详细介绍所识别工具的开发、估值、验证和应用的研究。将使用国际生活质量研究协会患者报告结局测量的最低标准中的标准、基于多属性效用工具的估值研究报告清单以及该工具在姑息治疗环境中的开发信息，评估这些工具对姑息治疗经济评估的适用程度。将提供纳入研究和工具的叙述性总结；将描述异同之处并探讨差异的可能原因。将提供关于在姑息治疗经济分析中选择工具的实践建议。