File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Economic evaluations of palliative care models: A systematic review

TitleEconomic evaluations of palliative care models: A systematic review
Authors
Keywordscost and cost analysis
end of life
Palliative care
Issue Date2020
Citation
Palliative Medicine, 2020, v. 34, n. 1, p. 69-82 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: Palliative care aims to improve quality of life by relieving physical, emotional, and spiritual suffering. Health system planning can be informed by evaluating cost and effectiveness of health care delivery, including palliative care. Aim: The objectives of this article were to describe and critically appraise economic evaluations of palliative care models and to identify cost-effective models in improving patient-centered outcomes. Design: We conducted a systematic review and registered our protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42016053973). Data sources: A systematic search of nine medical and economic databases was conducted and extended with reference scanning and gray literature. Methodological quality was assessed using the Drummond checklist. Results: We identified 12,632 articles and 5 were included. We included two modeling studies from the United States and England, and three economic evaluations from England, Australia, and Italy. Two studies compared home-based palliative care models to usual care, and one compared home-based palliative care to no care. Effectiveness outcomes included hospital readmission prevented, days at home, and palliative care symptom severity. All studies concluded that palliative care was cost-effective compared to usual care. The methodological quality was good overall, but three out of five studies were based on small sample sizes. Conclusion: Applicability and generalizability of evidence is uncertain due to small sample sizes, short duration, and limited modeling of costs and effects. Further economic evaluations with larger sample sizes are needed, inclusive of the diversity and complexity of palliative care populations and using patient-centered outcomes.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/346752
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 3.6
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.310

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMathew, Christine-
dc.contributor.authorHsu, Amy T.-
dc.contributor.authorPrentice, Michelle-
dc.contributor.authorLawlor, Peter-
dc.contributor.authorKyeremanteng, Kwadwo-
dc.contributor.authorTanuseputro, Peter-
dc.contributor.authorWelch, Vivian-
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-17T04:13:03Z-
dc.date.available2024-09-17T04:13:03Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationPalliative Medicine, 2020, v. 34, n. 1, p. 69-82-
dc.identifier.issn0269-2163-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/346752-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Palliative care aims to improve quality of life by relieving physical, emotional, and spiritual suffering. Health system planning can be informed by evaluating cost and effectiveness of health care delivery, including palliative care. Aim: The objectives of this article were to describe and critically appraise economic evaluations of palliative care models and to identify cost-effective models in improving patient-centered outcomes. Design: We conducted a systematic review and registered our protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42016053973). Data sources: A systematic search of nine medical and economic databases was conducted and extended with reference scanning and gray literature. Methodological quality was assessed using the Drummond checklist. Results: We identified 12,632 articles and 5 were included. We included two modeling studies from the United States and England, and three economic evaluations from England, Australia, and Italy. Two studies compared home-based palliative care models to usual care, and one compared home-based palliative care to no care. Effectiveness outcomes included hospital readmission prevented, days at home, and palliative care symptom severity. All studies concluded that palliative care was cost-effective compared to usual care. The methodological quality was good overall, but three out of five studies were based on small sample sizes. Conclusion: Applicability and generalizability of evidence is uncertain due to small sample sizes, short duration, and limited modeling of costs and effects. Further economic evaluations with larger sample sizes are needed, inclusive of the diversity and complexity of palliative care populations and using patient-centered outcomes.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofPalliative Medicine-
dc.subjectcost and cost analysis-
dc.subjectend of life-
dc.subjectPalliative care-
dc.titleEconomic evaluations of palliative care models: A systematic review-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0269216319875906-
dc.identifier.pmid31854213-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85077207491-
dc.identifier.volume34-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage69-
dc.identifier.epage82-
dc.identifier.eissn1477-030X-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats