Suppr超能文献

使用患者决策辅助工具是否能节省成本?系统评价。

Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review.

机构信息

The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.

Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Belfast, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 16;10(11):e036834. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036834.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To update a previous systematic review to determine if patient decision aid (PDA) interventions generate savings in healthcare settings, and if so, from which perspective (ie, patient, organisation providing care, society).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Campbell Collaboration Library, EconLit, Business Source Complete, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) from 15 March 2013 to 25 January 2019. The references of studies that met the eligibility criteria and any publications related to conference abstracts or registered clinical trials were reviewed to increase the sensitivity of the search.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Full and partial economic evaluations with an experimental, quasi-experimental or randomised controlled design were included. The intervention had to satisfy the pre-determined minimum conditions necessary to be defined as a PDA, and (for full evaluations) provide details on the comparator used.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

All study outcomes and economic data were extracted. The reporting and quality of the economic analyses were independently assessed by two health economists.

RESULTS

Of 5066 studies, 22 studies were included, including the 8 studies from the previous review. Twelve studies reported cost-savings (range=US$10 to US$81 156; US dollars in 2020), primarily from the organisational or health system perspective, and 10 studies did not. However, due to the quality of the economic analyses, and the related issues with the interpretative validity of results it would be inappropriate to say that PDAs will generate savings, from any perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether PDAs will generate savings. Greater consensus on what constitutes a PDA and the need to compare them against usual care over a sufficient time horizon to allow valid assessment of costs and outcomes is required.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019118457.

摘要

目的

更新之前的系统评价,以确定患者决策辅助(PDA)干预措施是否能在医疗保健环境中节省成本,如果可以,是从哪个角度(即患者、提供护理的组织、社会)节省成本。

设计

系统评价。

数据来源

MEDLINE、CINAHL、PsycINFO、Web of Science、Cochrane 图书馆、Embase、坎贝尔协作图书馆、EconLit、商业资源全文数据库、综述与传播中心:NHS 经济评估数据库(NHS EED)、效果摘要数据库(DARE)和健康技术评估(HTA),检索时间为 2013 年 3 月 15 日至 2019 年 1 月 25 日。对符合入选标准的研究的参考文献以及任何与会议摘要或已注册临床试验相关的出版物进行了回顾,以提高搜索的敏感性。

入选标准

纳入了具有实验、准实验或随机对照设计的全或部分经济评估。干预措施必须满足预先确定的必要条件,才能被定义为 PDA,并且(对于全面评估)必须提供使用的对照措施的详细信息。

数据提取和综合

提取了所有研究结果和经济数据。两位健康经济学家独立评估了经济分析的报告和质量。

结果

在 5066 项研究中,有 22 项研究入选,其中包括之前综述中的 8 项研究。12 项研究报告了成本节约(范围为 10 至 81156 美元;2020 年的美元),主要来自组织或卫生系统的角度,而 10 项研究则没有。然而,由于经济分析的质量以及结果解释有效性方面的相关问题,不适宜说从任何角度来看,PDA 都会产生节约。

结论

目前尚不清楚 PDA 是否会产生节约。需要就什么构成 PDA 达成更大共识,并需要将其与常规护理进行比较,时间跨度要足以对成本和结果进行有效评估。

PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42019118457。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b746/7670951/ed473f5a107d/bmjopen-2020-036834f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验