Cargando…

Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review

OBJECTIVES: To update a previous systematic review to determine if patient decision aid (PDA) interventions generate savings in healthcare settings, and if so, from which perspective (ie, patient, organisation providing care, society). DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycIN...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scalia, Peter, Barr, Paul J, O'Neill, Ciaran, Crealey, Grainne E, Bagley, Pamela J, Blunt, Heather B, Elwyn, Glyn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7670951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33199416
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036834
_version_ 1783610839976116224
author Scalia, Peter
Barr, Paul J
O'Neill, Ciaran
Crealey, Grainne E
Bagley, Pamela J
Blunt, Heather B
Elwyn, Glyn
author_facet Scalia, Peter
Barr, Paul J
O'Neill, Ciaran
Crealey, Grainne E
Bagley, Pamela J
Blunt, Heather B
Elwyn, Glyn
author_sort Scalia, Peter
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To update a previous systematic review to determine if patient decision aid (PDA) interventions generate savings in healthcare settings, and if so, from which perspective (ie, patient, organisation providing care, society). DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Campbell Collaboration Library, EconLit, Business Source Complete, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) from 15 March 2013 to 25 January 2019. The references of studies that met the eligibility criteria and any publications related to conference abstracts or registered clinical trials were reviewed to increase the sensitivity of the search. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Full and partial economic evaluations with an experimental, quasi-experimental or randomised controlled design were included. The intervention had to satisfy the pre-determined minimum conditions necessary to be defined as a PDA, and (for full evaluations) provide details on the comparator used. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: All study outcomes and economic data were extracted. The reporting and quality of the economic analyses were independently assessed by two health economists. RESULTS: Of 5066 studies, 22 studies were included, including the 8 studies from the previous review. Twelve studies reported cost-savings (range=US$10 to US$81 156; US dollars in 2020), primarily from the organisational or health system perspective, and 10 studies did not. However, due to the quality of the economic analyses, and the related issues with the interpretative validity of results it would be inappropriate to say that PDAs will generate savings, from any perspective. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether PDAs will generate savings. Greater consensus on what constitutes a PDA and the need to compare them against usual care over a sufficient time horizon to allow valid assessment of costs and outcomes is required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019118457.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7670951
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76709512020-11-20 Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review Scalia, Peter Barr, Paul J O'Neill, Ciaran Crealey, Grainne E Bagley, Pamela J Blunt, Heather B Elwyn, Glyn BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVES: To update a previous systematic review to determine if patient decision aid (PDA) interventions generate savings in healthcare settings, and if so, from which perspective (ie, patient, organisation providing care, society). DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Campbell Collaboration Library, EconLit, Business Source Complete, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) from 15 March 2013 to 25 January 2019. The references of studies that met the eligibility criteria and any publications related to conference abstracts or registered clinical trials were reviewed to increase the sensitivity of the search. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Full and partial economic evaluations with an experimental, quasi-experimental or randomised controlled design were included. The intervention had to satisfy the pre-determined minimum conditions necessary to be defined as a PDA, and (for full evaluations) provide details on the comparator used. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: All study outcomes and economic data were extracted. The reporting and quality of the economic analyses were independently assessed by two health economists. RESULTS: Of 5066 studies, 22 studies were included, including the 8 studies from the previous review. Twelve studies reported cost-savings (range=US$10 to US$81 156; US dollars in 2020), primarily from the organisational or health system perspective, and 10 studies did not. However, due to the quality of the economic analyses, and the related issues with the interpretative validity of results it would be inappropriate to say that PDAs will generate savings, from any perspective. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether PDAs will generate savings. Greater consensus on what constitutes a PDA and the need to compare them against usual care over a sufficient time horizon to allow valid assessment of costs and outcomes is required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019118457. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7670951/ /pubmed/33199416 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036834 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/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, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Scalia, Peter
Barr, Paul J
O'Neill, Ciaran
Crealey, Grainne E
Bagley, Pamela J
Blunt, Heather B
Elwyn, Glyn
Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review
title Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review
title_full Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review
title_fullStr Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review
title_short Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review
title_sort does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7670951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33199416
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036834
work_keys_str_mv AT scaliapeter doestheuseofpatientdecisionaidsleadtocostsavingsasystematicreview
AT barrpaulj doestheuseofpatientdecisionaidsleadtocostsavingsasystematicreview
AT oneillciaran doestheuseofpatientdecisionaidsleadtocostsavingsasystematicreview
AT crealeygrainnee doestheuseofpatientdecisionaidsleadtocostsavingsasystematicreview
AT bagleypamelaj doestheuseofpatientdecisionaidsleadtocostsavingsasystematicreview
AT bluntheatherb doestheuseofpatientdecisionaidsleadtocostsavingsasystematicreview
AT elwynglyn doestheuseofpatientdecisionaidsleadtocostsavingsasystematicreview