Cargando…
Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review
OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care testing (POCT) has become an essential diagnostic technology for optimal patient care. Its implementation, however, still falls behind. This paper reviews the available evidence on the health economic impact of introducing POCT to assess if poor POCT uptake may be related to...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8160040/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33405188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00248-1 |
_version_ | 1783700199126859776 |
---|---|
author | Lingervelder, Deon Koffijberg, Hendrik Kusters, Ron IJzerman, Maarten J. |
author_facet | Lingervelder, Deon Koffijberg, Hendrik Kusters, Ron IJzerman, Maarten J. |
author_sort | Lingervelder, Deon |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care testing (POCT) has become an essential diagnostic technology for optimal patient care. Its implementation, however, still falls behind. This paper reviews the available evidence on the health economic impact of introducing POCT to assess if poor POCT uptake may be related to lacking evidence. STUDY DESIGN: The Scopus and PubMed databases were searched to identify publications describing a health economic evaluation of a point-of-care (POC) test. Data were extracted from the included publications, including general and methodological characteristics as well as the study results summarized in either cost, effects or an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results were sorted into six groups according to the POC test’s purpose (diagnosis, screening or monitoring) and care setting (primary care or secondary care). The reporting quality of the publications was determined using the CHEERS checklist. RESULTS: The initial search resulted in 396 publications, of which 44 met the inclusion criteria. Most of the evaluations were performed in a primary care setting (n = 31; 70.5%) compared with a secondary care setting (n = 13; 29.5%). About two thirds of the evaluations were on POC tests implemented with a diagnostic purpose (n = 28; 63.6%). More than 75% of evaluations concluded that POCT is recommended for implementation, although in some cases only under specific circumstances and conditions. Compliance with the CHEERS checklist items ranged from 20.8% to 100%, with an average reporting quality of 72.0%. CONCLUSION: There were very few evaluations in this review that advised against the implementation of POCT. However, the uptake of POCT in many countries remains low. Even though the evaluations included in this review did not always include the full long-term benefits of POCT, it is clear that health economic evidence across a few dimensions of value already indicate the benefits of POCT. This suggests that the lack of evidence on POCT is not the primary barrier to its implementation and that the low uptake of these tests in clinical practice is due to (a combination of) other barriers. In this context, aspects around organization of care, support of clinicians and quality management may be crucial in the widespread implementation of POCT. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-020-00248-1. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8160040 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81600402021-06-17 Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review Lingervelder, Deon Koffijberg, Hendrik Kusters, Ron IJzerman, Maarten J. Pharmacoecon Open Systematic Review OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care testing (POCT) has become an essential diagnostic technology for optimal patient care. Its implementation, however, still falls behind. This paper reviews the available evidence on the health economic impact of introducing POCT to assess if poor POCT uptake may be related to lacking evidence. STUDY DESIGN: The Scopus and PubMed databases were searched to identify publications describing a health economic evaluation of a point-of-care (POC) test. Data were extracted from the included publications, including general and methodological characteristics as well as the study results summarized in either cost, effects or an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results were sorted into six groups according to the POC test’s purpose (diagnosis, screening or monitoring) and care setting (primary care or secondary care). The reporting quality of the publications was determined using the CHEERS checklist. RESULTS: The initial search resulted in 396 publications, of which 44 met the inclusion criteria. Most of the evaluations were performed in a primary care setting (n = 31; 70.5%) compared with a secondary care setting (n = 13; 29.5%). About two thirds of the evaluations were on POC tests implemented with a diagnostic purpose (n = 28; 63.6%). More than 75% of evaluations concluded that POCT is recommended for implementation, although in some cases only under specific circumstances and conditions. Compliance with the CHEERS checklist items ranged from 20.8% to 100%, with an average reporting quality of 72.0%. CONCLUSION: There were very few evaluations in this review that advised against the implementation of POCT. However, the uptake of POCT in many countries remains low. Even though the evaluations included in this review did not always include the full long-term benefits of POCT, it is clear that health economic evidence across a few dimensions of value already indicate the benefits of POCT. This suggests that the lack of evidence on POCT is not the primary barrier to its implementation and that the low uptake of these tests in clinical practice is due to (a combination of) other barriers. In this context, aspects around organization of care, support of clinicians and quality management may be crucial in the widespread implementation of POCT. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-020-00248-1. Springer International Publishing 2021-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8160040/ /pubmed/33405188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00248-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Lingervelder, Deon Koffijberg, Hendrik Kusters, Ron IJzerman, Maarten J. Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review |
title | Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | health economic evidence of point-of-care testing: a systematic review |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8160040/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33405188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00248-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lingervelderdeon healtheconomicevidenceofpointofcaretestingasystematicreview AT koffijberghendrik healtheconomicevidenceofpointofcaretestingasystematicreview AT kustersron healtheconomicevidenceofpointofcaretestingasystematicreview AT ijzermanmaartenj healtheconomicevidenceofpointofcaretestingasystematicreview |