Cargando…

Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and appraise the quality of economic evaluations assessing centralisation of specialised healthcare services. METHODS: A systematic review to identify economic evaluations on centralisation of any specialised healthcare service. Full economic evaluations comparing...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bhattarai, Nawaraj, McMeekin, Peter, Price, Christopher, Vale, Luke
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4861117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27154484
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011214
_version_ 1782431175398129664
author Bhattarai, Nawaraj
McMeekin, Peter
Price, Christopher
Vale, Luke
author_facet Bhattarai, Nawaraj
McMeekin, Peter
Price, Christopher
Vale, Luke
author_sort Bhattarai, Nawaraj
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and appraise the quality of economic evaluations assessing centralisation of specialised healthcare services. METHODS: A systematic review to identify economic evaluations on centralisation of any specialised healthcare service. Full economic evaluations comparing costs and consequences of centralisation of any specialised healthcare service were eligible for inclusion. Methodological characteristics of included studies were appraised using checklists adapted from recommended guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 64 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were conducted in the UK. Most of the studies used volume of activity as a proxy measure of centralisation. The methods used to assess centralisation were heterogeneous. Studies differed in terms of study design used and aspect of centralisation they considered. There were major limitations in studies. Only 12 studies reported the study perspective. Charges which are not true representation of costs were used by 17 studies to assess cost outcomes. Only 10 reported the detailed breakdown of the cost components used in their analysis. Discounting was necessary in 14 studies but was reported only in 7 studies. Sensitivity analyses were included by less than one-third of the studies. The applicability of the identified studies to a setting other than the one they were conducted in is questionable, given variations in the organisation of services and healthcare costs. Centralisation as a concept has also been variably and narrowly defined as activity of specific services which may not reflect the wider aspects of centralisation. CONCLUSIONS: Confounded and biased information coming from studies without standardised methods may mislead decision-makers towards making wrong decisions on centralisation. It is important to improve the methodology and reporting of economic evaluations in order to provide more robust and transferable evidence. Wider aspects of healthcare centralisation should be considered in the estimates of costs and health outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4861117
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48611172016-05-27 Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods Bhattarai, Nawaraj McMeekin, Peter Price, Christopher Vale, Luke BMJ Open Health Economics OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and appraise the quality of economic evaluations assessing centralisation of specialised healthcare services. METHODS: A systematic review to identify economic evaluations on centralisation of any specialised healthcare service. Full economic evaluations comparing costs and consequences of centralisation of any specialised healthcare service were eligible for inclusion. Methodological characteristics of included studies were appraised using checklists adapted from recommended guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 64 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were conducted in the UK. Most of the studies used volume of activity as a proxy measure of centralisation. The methods used to assess centralisation were heterogeneous. Studies differed in terms of study design used and aspect of centralisation they considered. There were major limitations in studies. Only 12 studies reported the study perspective. Charges which are not true representation of costs were used by 17 studies to assess cost outcomes. Only 10 reported the detailed breakdown of the cost components used in their analysis. Discounting was necessary in 14 studies but was reported only in 7 studies. Sensitivity analyses were included by less than one-third of the studies. The applicability of the identified studies to a setting other than the one they were conducted in is questionable, given variations in the organisation of services and healthcare costs. Centralisation as a concept has also been variably and narrowly defined as activity of specific services which may not reflect the wider aspects of centralisation. CONCLUSIONS: Confounded and biased information coming from studies without standardised methods may mislead decision-makers towards making wrong decisions on centralisation. It is important to improve the methodology and reporting of economic evaluations in order to provide more robust and transferable evidence. Wider aspects of healthcare centralisation should be considered in the estimates of costs and health outcomes. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-05-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4861117/ /pubmed/27154484 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011214 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Health Economics
Bhattarai, Nawaraj
McMeekin, Peter
Price, Christopher
Vale, Luke
Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods
title Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods
title_full Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods
title_fullStr Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods
title_full_unstemmed Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods
title_short Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods
title_sort economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods
topic Health Economics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4861117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27154484
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011214
work_keys_str_mv AT bhattarainawaraj economicevaluationsoncentralisationofspecialisedhealthcareservicesasystematicreviewofmethods
AT mcmeekinpeter economicevaluationsoncentralisationofspecialisedhealthcareservicesasystematicreviewofmethods
AT pricechristopher economicevaluationsoncentralisationofspecialisedhealthcareservicesasystematicreviewofmethods
AT valeluke economicevaluationsoncentralisationofspecialisedhealthcareservicesasystematicreviewofmethods