Raunbak Sabine Michelsen, Weinreich Ulla Møller, Johnsen Søren Paaske, Udsen Flemming Witt
Danish Center for Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark
Department of Respiratory Diseases, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
BMJ Open. 2024 Dec 22;14(12):e087676. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087676.
Reviews of economic evaluations of telehealth interventions found that the current evidence is inconsistent with standard guidelines for conducting economic evaluation. The reviews conclude that most economic evaluations of telehealth interventions are small-scale and short-term. The choice of time horizon in economic evaluation, in general, is an important part. When using longer time horizons, it often involves extrapolating costs and effects, where assumptions are taken. Different tools for extrapolating cost and effects in economic evaluations exist. However, there is a heterogeneity in the methods used, which can create different results. Therefore, this study aims to review the design and conduct of existing long-term economic evaluations of telehealth interventions using extrapolation methods. Furthermore, the aim is to map the methods used for extrapolation.
A scoping review is conducted to investigate the aim of this study. To identify relevant studies for inclusion in the scoping review, a systematic literature search will be conducted in the electronic databases: Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), EconLit (ProQuest), Web of Science (Clarivate), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) and CINAHL (EBSCO Industries). A grey literature search will be conducted in Google Scholar. The search will be supplemented with studies identified by reviewing the references in the included studies and reviewing the citations of the included studies. The extracted data from the studies in the scoping review will be presented in relevant descriptive tables and summarising descriptions. The results will be reported in correspondence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guideline.
Hence, the methodology used is a scoping review of the existing literature; no ethical or safety considerations are identified for this study. The plan for dissemination includes a peer-reviewed publication and possible poster or oral presentations.
对远程医疗干预措施的经济评估综述发现,目前的证据与进行经济评估的标准指南不一致。综述得出结论,大多数远程医疗干预措施的经济评估规模较小且为期短期。一般而言,经济评估中时间范围的选择是一个重要部分。使用较长时间范围时,通常涉及对成本和效果进行外推,并做出假设。经济评估中有不同的成本和效果外推工具。然而,所使用的方法存在异质性,这可能会产生不同的结果。因此,本研究旨在回顾使用外推方法对远程医疗干预措施进行的现有长期经济评估的设计与实施。此外,目的是梳理用于外推的方法。
进行一项范围综述以调查本研究的目的。为确定纳入范围综述的相关研究,将在以下电子数据库中进行系统文献检索:Embase(爱思唯尔)、PubMed(美国国立医学图书馆)、EconLit(ProQuest)、Web of Science(科睿唯安)、NHS经济评估数据库(NHS综述与传播中心)和CINAHL(EBSCO工业公司)。将在谷歌学术中进行灰色文献检索。检索将通过审查纳入研究中的参考文献以及纳入研究的引用文献来补充确定的研究。从范围综述中的研究提取的数据将呈现于相关描述性表格和总结性描述中。结果将按照《系统评价和Meta分析扩展版范围综述的首选报告项目》指南进行报告。
因此,所使用的方法是对现有文献的范围综述;本研究未发现伦理或安全方面的考虑因素。传播计划包括同行评审出版物以及可能的海报展示或口头报告。