Tchouaket Eric Nguemeleu, El-Mousawi Fatima, Robins Stephanie, Kruglova Katya, Séguin Catherine, Kilpatrick Kelley, Jubinville Maripier, Leroux Suzanne, Beogo Idrissa, Sia Drissa
Canadian Research Chair in the Economics of Infection Prevention and Control, Department of Nursing, Université du Québec en Outaouais, St-Jérôme Campus 5, rue Saint-Joseph, Office, Saint-Jérôme, Québec, J-2204, J7Z 0B7, Canada.
Susan E. French Chair in Nursing Research and Innovative Practice, Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, 680 Sherbrooke St West, Montréal, Québec, H3A 2M7, Canada.
Health Econ Rev. 2024 Nov 29;14(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s13561-024-00582-8.
Healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) are common in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and cause significant burden. Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures include the clinical best practices (CBP) of hand hygiene, hygiene and sanitation, screening, and basic and additional precautions. Few studies demonstrate their cost-effectiveness in LTCF, and those that do, largely focus on one CBP. An overarching synthesis of IPC economic analyses in this context is warranted. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of CBP applied in LTCF.
We twice queried CINAHL, Cochrane, EconLit, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published in the last three decades of economic evaluations of CBP in LTCF. We included controlled and randomized clinical trials, cohort, longitudinal, follow-up, prospective, retrospective, cross-sectional, and simulations studies, as well as those based on mathematical or statistical modelling. Two reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of studies. We applied discounting rates of 3%, 5% and 8%, and presented all costs in 2022 Canadian dollars. The protocol of this review was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1210) and published in BMC Systematic Reviews.
We found 3,331 records and then 822 records; ten studies were retained. The economic analyses described were cost-minimization (n = 1), cost-benefit (n = 1), cost-savings (n = 2), cost-utility (n = 2) and cost-effectiveness which included cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses (n = 4). Four studies were high quality, three were moderate, and three were low quality. Inter-rater agreement for quality assessment was 91⋅7%. All studies (n = 10) demonstrated that CBP associated with IPC are clinically effective in LTCF and many (n = 6) demonstrated their cost effectiveness.
Ongoing economic evaluation research of IPC remains essential to underpin healthcare policy choices guided by empirical evidence for LTCF residents and staff.
医疗保健相关感染(HCAI)在长期护理机构(LTCF)中很常见,并造成重大负担。感染预防与控制(IPC)措施包括手部卫生、环境卫生与清洁、筛查以及基本和额外预防措施等临床最佳实践(CBP)。很少有研究证明其在长期护理机构中的成本效益,即便有,也大多只关注一种临床最佳实践。因此,有必要对这方面的IPC经济分析进行全面综合。本文旨在对长期护理机构应用的临床最佳实践的经济评估进行系统综述。
我们两次检索了CINAHL、Cochrane、EconLit、Embase、Medline、Web of Science和Scopus数据库,以查找过去三十年中有关长期护理机构临床最佳实践经济评估的研究。我们纳入了对照和随机临床试验、队列研究、纵向研究、随访研究、前瞻性研究、回顾性研究、横断面研究和模拟研究,以及基于数学或统计模型的研究。两名评审员对研究进行筛选、数据提取和质量评估。我们应用了3%、5%和8%的贴现率,并以2022年加拿大元表示所有成本。本综述方案已在Research Registry(reviewregistry1210)注册,并发表于《BMC系统综述》。
我们找到了3331条记录,之后又找到822条记录;最终保留了10项研究。所描述的经济分析包括成本最小化分析(n = 1)、成本效益分析(n = 1)、成本节约分析(n = 2)、成本效用分析(n = 2)以及包括成本效用和成本效益分析在内的成本效果分析(n = 4)。4项研究质量高,3项中等,3项低等。质量评估的评分者间一致性为91.7%。所有10项研究均表明,与IPC相关的临床最佳实践在长期护理机构中具有临床有效性,许多研究(n = 6)表明了其成本效益。
持续开展IPC经济评估研究对于为长期护理机构的居民和工作人员制定以实证证据为指导的医疗保健政策选择至关重要。