Dataset Information

Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Health and care services are becoming increasingly strained and healthcare authorities worldwide are investing in integrated care in the hope of delivering higher-quality services while containing costs. The cost-effectiveness of integrated care, however, remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to appraise current economic evaluations of integrated care and assesses the impact on outcomes and costs. METHODS:CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, Medline/PubMed, NHS EED, OECD Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and WHOLIS databases from inception to 31 December 2019 were searched to identify studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of integrated care. Study quality was assessed using an adapted CHEERS checklist and used as weight in a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate mean cost and mean outcomes of integrated care. RESULTS:Selected studies achieved a relatively low average quality score of 65.0% (±?18.7%). Overall meta-analyses from 34 studies showed a significant decrease in costs (0.94; CI 0.90-0.99) and a statistically significant improvement in outcomes (1.06; CI 1.05-1.08) associated with integrated care compared to the control. There is substantial heterogeneity in both costs and outcomes across subgroups. Results were significant in studies lasting over 12 months (12 studies), with both a decrease in cost (0.87; CI 0.80-0.94) and improvement in outcomes (1.15; 95% CI 1.11-1.18) for integrated care interventions; whereas, these associations were not significant in studies with follow-up less than a year. CONCLUSION:Our findings suggest that integrated care is likely to reduce cost and improve outcome. However, existing evidence varies largely and is of moderate quality. Future economic evaluation should target methodological issues to aid policy decisions with more robust evidence on the cost-effectiveness of integrated care.

SUBMITTER: Rocks S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7561551 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Rocks Stephen S Berntson Daniela D Gil-Salmerón Alejandro A Kadu Mudathira M Ehrenberg Nieves N Stein Viktoria V Tsiachristas Apostolos A

The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care 20200706 8

<h4>Background</h4>Health and care services are becoming increasingly strained and healthcare authorities worldwide are investing in integrated care in the hope of delivering higher-quality services while containing costs. The cost-effectiveness of integrated care, however, remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to appraise current economic evaluations of integrated care and assesses the impact on outcomes and costs.<h4>Methods</h4>CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, Medline/PubMed, NH ...[more]

PMID: 32632820

Similar Datasets

Project description:Care bundles are a set of three to five evidence-informed practices performed collectively and reliably to improve the quality of care. Care bundles are used widely across healthcare settings with the aim of preventing and managing different health conditions. This is the first systematic review designed to determine the effects of care bundles on patient outcomes and the behaviour of healthcare workers in relation to fidelity with care bundles.This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A total of 5796 abstracts were retrieved through a systematic search for articles published between January 1, 2001, to February 4, 2017, in the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, PsychInfo, British Library, Conference Proceeding Citation Index, OpenGrey trials (including cluster-randomised trials) and non-randomised studies (comprising controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort studies) of care bundles for any health condition and any healthcare settings were considered. Following the removal of duplicated studies, two reviewers independently screen 3134 records. Three authors performed data extraction independently. We compared the care bundles with usual care to evaluate the effects of care bundles on the risk of negative patient outcomes. Random-effect models were used to further explore the effects of subgroups.In total, 37 studies (6 randomised trials, 31 controlled before-after studies) were eligible for inclusion. The effect of care bundles on patient outcomes is uncertain. For randomised trial data, the pooled relative risk of negative effects between care bundle and control groups was 0.97 [95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 2049 participants]. The relative risk of negative patient outcomes from controlled before-after studies favoured the care bundle treated groups (0.66 [95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; 119,178 participants]). However, using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of all of the evidence to be very low (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness).Very low quality evidence from controlled before-after studies suggests that care bundles may reduce the risk of negative outcomes when compared with usual care. By contrast, the better quality evidence from six randomised trials is more uncertain.PROSPERO, CRD42016033175.

Project description:Background and objectivesCancer poses a substantial health and economic burden on patients and caregivers in Canada. Previous reviews have estimated the indirect cost burden as work-related productivity losses associated with cancer. However, these estimates require updating and complementing with more comprehensive data that include relevant dimensions beyond labor market costs, such as patient time, lost leisure time and home productivity losses.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify studies published from 2006 to 2020 that measured and reported the indirect costs borne by cancer patients and their caregivers in Canada, from the patient, caregiver, employer, and societal perspectives. Study characteristics and cost estimation methods were extracted from relevant studies. Costs estimates were reported and converted to 2020 CAD for the following categories: lost earnings, caregiving time costs, home production losses, patient time (leisure), morbidity-, disability-, premature mortality-related costs, friction costs, and overall productivity losses. A quality assessment of individual studies was conducted for included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Tool.ResultsIn total, 3980 studies were identified, of which 18 Canadian studies met the inclusion criteria for review. One-third of the studies used or developed prediction models, 38% enrolled patient cohorts, and 27% used administrative databases. Over one-third of the studies were conducted at a national level (38%). All studies employed the human capital approach to estimate costs, and 16% also used the friction cost approach. Lost earnings were higher among self-employed patients (43% vs 24% among employees) and females ($8200 vs $3200 for males). Caregiver costs ranged from $15,786 to $20,414 per patient per year. Household productivity losses were estimated to be up to $238,904 per household per year. Patient time (leisure) costs were estimated to be between $13,000 and $18,704 per patient per year. Premature annual mortality costs were estimated to be $2.98 billion overall in Quebec. Friction costs incurred by employers were estimated between $6400 and $23,987 per patient per year. Societal productivity losses associated with cancer were estimated between $75 million to $317 million, annually.ConclusionsThis review suggests that the indirect cost burden of cancer is considerable from the patient, caregiver, employer, and societal perspectives. This up-to-date review of the literature provides a comprehensive understanding of the indirect cost burden by including non-labor market activity costs and by examining all relevant perspectives. These results provide a strong case for the government and employers to ensure there are supports in place to help patients and caregivers buffer the impact of cancer so they can continue to engage in productive activities and enjoy leisure time.

Project description:Background and objectiveThe current treatments of primary musculoskeletal low back pain (LBP) have a low to moderate efficacy, which might be improved by looking at the contribution of placebo effects. However, the size of true placebo effects in LBP is unknown. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were executed of randomized controlled trials investigating placebo effects in LBP.Databases and data treatmentThe study protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews Prospero (CRD42019148745). A literature search (in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO) up to 2021 February 16th yielded 2,423 studies. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility and risk of bias.ResultsEighteen studies were eligible for the systematic review and 5 for the meta-analysis. Fourteen of the 18 studies were clinical treatment studies, and 4 were experimental studies specifically assessing placebo effects. The clinical treatment studies provided varying evidence for placebo effects in chronic LBP but insufficient evidence for acute and subacute LBP. Most experimental studies investigating chronic LBP revealed significant placebo effects. The meta-analysis of 5 treatment studies investigating chronic LBP depicted a significant moderate effect size of placebo for pain intensity (SMD = 0.57) and disability (SMD = 0.52).ConclusionsThis review shows a significant contribution of placebo effects to chronic LBP symptom relief in clinical and experimental conditions. The meta-analysis revealed that placebo effects can influence chronic LBP intensity and disability. However, additional studies are required for more supporting evidence and evidence for placebo effects in acute or subacute LBP.SignificanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence of true placebo effects in low back pain (LBP). It shows a significant contribution of placebo effects to chronic LBP symptom relief. The results highlight the importance of patient- and context-related factors in fostering treatment effects in this patient group. New studies could provide insight into the potential value of actively making use of placebo effects in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundWith obesity prevalence projected to increase, the demand for bariatric surgery will consequently rise. Enhanced recovery programmes aim for improved recovery, earlier discharge, and more efficient use of resources following surgery. This systematic literature review aimed to evaluate the evidence available on the effects of enhanced recovery programmes after three common bariatric procedures: laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB).MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched for studies published in 2012-2019 comparing outcomes with enhanced recovery programmes versus conventional care after bariatric surgery in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Data were extracted and meta-analyses or descriptive analyses performed when appropriate using R.ResultsOf 1152 screened articles, seven relevant studies including 3592 patients were identified. Six reported outcomes for 1434 patients undergoing LRYGB; however, as only individual studies reported on LSG and OAGB these could not be included in the analyses. The meta-analysis revealed a significantly shorter mean duration of hospital-stay for LRYGB enhanced recovery programmes than conventional care (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.34 days [-2.01, -0.67]; p<0.0001), supported by sensitivity analysis excluding retrospective studies. Meta-analysis found no significant difference in 30-day readmission rate (risk ratio [95% CI]: 1.39 [0.84, 2.28]; p = 0.2010). Complication rates were inconsistently reported by Clavien-Dindo grade, but descriptive analysis showed generally higher low-grade rates for enhanced recovery programmes; the trend reversed for high-grade complications. Reoperation rates were rarely reported; no significant differences were seen.ConclusionThese results support enhanced recovery programmes allowing shorter inpatient stay without significant differences in readmission rate following LRYGB, although complication and reoperation rate comparisons were inconclusive. Further research is needed to fill current data gaps including the lack of studies on LSG and OAGB.

Dataset Information

Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets