Cargando…

Systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic literature review is to identify and critique full economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people with the purpose of informing the design of future rigorous economic evaluations of such intervention programs. METHODS: A PRISMA compliant searc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Edmunds, Kim, Ling, Rod, Shakeshaft, Anthony, Doran, Chris, Searles, Andrew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6108123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30139384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3450-x
_version_ 1783350089851338752
author Edmunds, Kim
Ling, Rod
Shakeshaft, Anthony
Doran, Chris
Searles, Andrew
author_facet Edmunds, Kim
Ling, Rod
Shakeshaft, Anthony
Doran, Chris
Searles, Andrew
author_sort Edmunds, Kim
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic literature review is to identify and critique full economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people with the purpose of informing the design of future rigorous economic evaluations of such intervention programs. METHODS: A PRISMA compliant search of the literature between 2000 and April 2018 was conducted to identify full economic evaluations of youth focussed interventions for at risk young people. Duplicates were removed and two researchers independently screened the article titles and abstracts according to PICOS criteria for exclusion and inclusion. The remaining full text articles were assessed for eligibility and a quality assessment of the included articles was conducted using the Drummond checklist. RESULTS: The database, grey literature and hand searches located 488 studies of interventions for at risk young people. After preliminary screening of titles and abstracts, 104 studies remained for full text examination and 29 empirical studies containing 32 separate economic evaluations were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. These comprised 13 cost-benefit analyses (41%), 17 cost-effectiveness analyses (53%), one cost-utility analysis (3%) and a social return on investment (3%). Three main methodological challenges were identified: 1. attribution of effects; 2. measuring and valuing outcomes; and 3. identifying relevant costs and consequences. CONCLUSIONS: A cost-benefit analysis would best capture the dynamic nature of a multi-component intervention for high risk young people, incorporating broader intersectoral outcomes and enabling measurement of more domains of risk. Prospective long-term data collection and a strong study design that incorporates a control group contribute to the quality of economic evaluation. Extrapolation of impact into the future is important for this population, in order to account for the time lag in effect of many impacts and benefits arising from youth interventions. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3450-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6108123
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61081232018-08-28 Systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people Edmunds, Kim Ling, Rod Shakeshaft, Anthony Doran, Chris Searles, Andrew BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic literature review is to identify and critique full economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people with the purpose of informing the design of future rigorous economic evaluations of such intervention programs. METHODS: A PRISMA compliant search of the literature between 2000 and April 2018 was conducted to identify full economic evaluations of youth focussed interventions for at risk young people. Duplicates were removed and two researchers independently screened the article titles and abstracts according to PICOS criteria for exclusion and inclusion. The remaining full text articles were assessed for eligibility and a quality assessment of the included articles was conducted using the Drummond checklist. RESULTS: The database, grey literature and hand searches located 488 studies of interventions for at risk young people. After preliminary screening of titles and abstracts, 104 studies remained for full text examination and 29 empirical studies containing 32 separate economic evaluations were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. These comprised 13 cost-benefit analyses (41%), 17 cost-effectiveness analyses (53%), one cost-utility analysis (3%) and a social return on investment (3%). Three main methodological challenges were identified: 1. attribution of effects; 2. measuring and valuing outcomes; and 3. identifying relevant costs and consequences. CONCLUSIONS: A cost-benefit analysis would best capture the dynamic nature of a multi-component intervention for high risk young people, incorporating broader intersectoral outcomes and enabling measurement of more domains of risk. Prospective long-term data collection and a strong study design that incorporates a control group contribute to the quality of economic evaluation. Extrapolation of impact into the future is important for this population, in order to account for the time lag in effect of many impacts and benefits arising from youth interventions. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3450-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6108123/ /pubmed/30139384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3450-x Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Edmunds, Kim
Ling, Rod
Shakeshaft, Anthony
Doran, Chris
Searles, Andrew
Systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people
title Systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people
title_full Systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people
title_fullStr Systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people
title_short Systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people
title_sort systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6108123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30139384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3450-x
work_keys_str_mv AT edmundskim systematicreviewofeconomicevaluationsofinterventionsforhighriskyoungpeople
AT lingrod systematicreviewofeconomicevaluationsofinterventionsforhighriskyoungpeople
AT shakeshaftanthony systematicreviewofeconomicevaluationsofinterventionsforhighriskyoungpeople
AT doranchris systematicreviewofeconomicevaluationsofinterventionsforhighriskyoungpeople
AT searlesandrew systematicreviewofeconomicevaluationsofinterventionsforhighriskyoungpeople