Correia L R, Martins J C, Rother E T, de Soárez P C
Departamento de Medicina Preventiva da Faculdade de Medicina da, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2025 Sep 11;23(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s12961-025-01324-w.
With the increasing use of the term "impact evaluation" in healthcare and the absence of an exhaustive review on this general theme, this research aims to map available evidence and methods associated with impact evaluations in healthcare by conducting a scoping review.
This exhaustive review included peer-reviewed studies of healthcare interventions with no restrictions on language or time of publication.
In total, 324 studies met the inclusion criteria from 4372 single registries retrieved from Medline, Embase, Scopus, WoS and Econlit in August 2024, with no time restriction. Only ex-post studies were identified; as expected from guidelines, most studies used counterfactuals (58%) and only 7% did not use any comparison. Furthermore, natural experiments or quasi-experiments were the most applied designs (37%), followed by observational (26%) and experimental (17%) designs.
Impact evaluations of healthcare interventions seem to be predominantly associated with methods of strong comparison (counterfactuals) designs as seen in guidelines; however, there are exceptions.
随着“影响评估”一词在医疗保健领域的使用日益增加，且缺乏对这一总体主题的详尽综述，本研究旨在通过进行范围综述，梳理与医疗保健影响评估相关的现有证据和方法。
本详尽综述纳入了对医疗保健干预措施的同行评审研究，对语言和发表时间均无限制。
2024年8月从Medline、Embase、Scopus、WoS和Econlit检索到的4372个单一数据库中，共有324项研究符合纳入标准，且无时间限制。仅识别出事后研究；正如指南所预期的那样，大多数研究使用了反事实（58%），只有7%未使用任何对照。此外，自然实验或准实验是应用最多的设计（37%），其次是观察性设计（26%）和实验性设计（17%）。
医疗保健干预措施的影响评估似乎主要与指南中所见的强对照（反事实）设计方法相关；然而，也有例外情况。
