Dataset Information

Economic evaluation of advanced practice physiotherapy models of care: a systematic review with meta-analyses

ABSTRACT:

Background

The objective of this systematic review is to appraise evidence on the economic evaluations of advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) care compared to usual medical care.

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted up to September 2021 in selected electronic bibliographical databases. Economic evaluation studies on an APP model of care were included. Economic data such as health care costs, patient costs, productivity losses were extracted. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Meta-analyses were performed and mean differences (MD) in costs per patient were calculated using random-effect inverse variance models. Certainty of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE Approach.

Results

Twelve studies (n = 14,649 participants) including four randomized controlled trials, seven analytical cohort studies and one economic modeling study were included. The clinical settings of APP models of care included primary, emergency and specialized secondary care such as orthopaedics, paediatrics and gynaecology. The majority of the included participants were adults with musculoskeletal disorders (n = 12,915). Based on low quality evidence, health system costs including salaries, diagnostic tests, medications, and follow-up visits were significantly lower with APP care than with usual medical care, at 2 to 12-month follow-up (MD: − 145.02 €/patient; 95%CI: − 251.89 to − 38.14; n = 7648). Based on low quality evidence, patient costs including travel and paid medication prescriptions, or treatments were significantly higher with APP care compared to usual medical care, at 2 to 6-month follow-up (MD: 22.18 €/patient; 95%CI: 0.40 to 43.96; n = 1485). Based on very low quality evidence, no significant differences in productivity losses per patient were reported between both types of care (MD: 450 €/patient; 95%CI: − 80 to 970; n = 819).

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the economic evaluation of APP models of care. Low quality evidence suggests that APP care might result in lower health care costs, but higher patient costs compared to usual medical care. Costs differences may vary depending on various factors such as the cost methodology used and on the clinical setting. More evidence is needed to evaluate cost benefits of APP models of care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07221-6.

SUBMITTER: Lafrance S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8579553 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Training healthcare providers in Emergency Obstetric Care (EmOC) has been shown to be effective in improving their capacity to provide this critical care package for mothers and babies. However, little is known about the costs and cost-effectiveness of such training. Understanding costs and cost-effectiveness is essential in guaranteeing value-for-money in healthcare spending. This study systematically reviewed the available literature on cost and cost-effectiveness of EmOC trainings.Peer-reviewed and grey literature was searched for relevant papers published after 1990. Studies were included if they described an economic evaluation of EmOC training and the training cost data were available. Two reviewers independently searched, screened, and selected studies that met the inclusion criteria, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Quality of studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. For comparability, all costs in local currency were converted to International dollar (I$) equivalents using purchasing power parity conversion factors. The cost per training per participant was calculated. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise the available evidence on cost effectiveness.Fourteen studies (five full and nine partial economic evaluations) met the inclusion criteria. All five and two of the nine partial economic evaluations were of high quality. The majority of studies (13/14) were from low- and middle-income countries. Training equipment, per diems and resource person allowance were the most expensive components. Cost of training per person per day ranged from I$33 to I$90 when accommodation was required and from I$5 to I$21 when training was facility-based. Cost-effectiveness of training was assessed in 5 studies with differing measures of effectiveness (knowledge, skills, procedure cost and lives saved) making comparison difficult.Economic evaluations of EmOC training are limited. There is a need to scale-up and standardise processes that capture both cost and effectiveness of training and to agree on suitable economic evaluation models that allow for comparability across settings.PROSPERO_CRD42016041911 .

Project description:ImportanceDuring COVID-19, Singapore simultaneously experienced a dengue outbreak, and acute hospitals were under pressure to lower bed occupancy rates. This led to new models of care to treat patients with acute, low-severity medical conditions either at home, in a hospital-at-home (HaH) model, or in a clinic-style setting sited at the emergency department in an ambulatory care team (ACT) model, but a reliable cost analysis for these models is lacking.ObjectiveTo compare personnel costs of HaH and ACT with inpatient care.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation study, time-driven activity-based costing was used to compare the personnel cost of inpatient care with treating dengue via HaH and treating chest pain via ACT. Participants were patients with nonsevere dengue and chest pain unrelated to a coronary event admitted via the emergency department to the internal medicine service of a tertiary hospital in Singapore.ExposuresHaH for dengue and ACT for chest pain.Main outcomes and measuresA process map was created for the patient journey for a typical patient with each condition. The amount of time personnel spent on delivering care was estimated and the cost per minute determined based on their wages in 2022. The total cost of care was calculated by multiplying the time spent by the per-minute cost of the personnel resource and summing all costs.ResultsCompared with inpatient care, HaH used 50% less nursing time (418 minutes, 95% uncertainty interval [UI], 370 to 465 minutes) but 80% more medical time (303 minutes, 95% UI, 270 to 338 minutes) per case of dengue. If implemented nationally, HaH would save an estimated 56 828 SGD per year (95% UI, -169 497 to 281 412 SGD [US $41 856; 95% UI, -$124 839 to $207 268]). The probability that HaH is cost saving was 69.2%. Compared with inpatient care, ACT used 15% less nursing time (296 minutes, 95% UI, 257 to 335 minutes) and 50% less medical time (57 minutes, 95% UI, 46 to 69 minutes) per case of chest pain. If implemented nationally, ACT would save an estimated 1 561 185 SGD per year (95% UI, 1 040 666 to 2 086 518 SGD [US $1 149 862; 95% UI, $766 483 to $1 536 786]). The probability that ACT is cost saving was 100%.Conclusions and relevanceThis economic evaluation found that the HaH and ACT models decreased the overall personnel cost of care. Reorganizing hospital resources may help hospitals reap the benefits of reduced hospital-acquired infections, improved patient recovery, and reduced hospital bed occupancy rates.

Project description:BackgroundInterventions designed to narrow the gap between research findings and clinical practice may be effective, but also costly. Economic evaluations are necessary to judge whether such interventions are worth the effort. We have evaluated the economic effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs. The tailored intervention was evaluated in a randomized trial, and was shown to significantly increase the use of thiazides for patients started on antihypertensive medication, but had little or no impact on other outcomes. The increased use of thiazides was not expected to have an impact on health outcomes.Methods and findingsWe performed cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness analyses on data from a randomized trial involving 146 general practices from two geographical areas in Norway. Each practice was randomized to either the tailored intervention (70 practices; 257 physicians) or control group (69 practices; 244 physicians). Only patients that were being started on antihypertensive medication were included in the analyses. A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change. Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback, and computerized reminders. Pharmacists conducted the visits. A cost-minimization framework was adopted, where the costs of intervention were set against the reduced treatment costs (principally due to increased use of thiazides rather than more expensive medication). The cost-effectiveness of the intervention was estimated as the cost per additional patient being started on thiazides. The net annual cost (cost minimization) in our study population was 53,395 US dollars, corresponding to 763 US dollars per practice. The cost per additional patient started on thiazides (cost-effectiveness) was 454 US dollars. The net annual savings in a national program was modeled to be 761,998 US dollars, or 540 US dollars per practice after 2 y. In this scenario the savings exceeded the costs in all but two of the sensitivity analyses we conducted, and the cost-effectiveness was estimated to be 183 US dollars.ConclusionsWe found a significant shift in prescribing of antihypertensive drugs towards the use of thiazides in our trial. A major reason to promote the use of thiazides is their lower price compared to other drugs. The cost of the intervention was more than twice the savings within the time frame of our study. However, we predict modest savings over a 2-y period.