Economic evaluation of advanced practice physiotherapy models of care: a systematic review with meta-analyses

被引:12
|
作者
Lafrance, Simon [1 ,2 ]
Demont, Anthony [3 ,4 ]
Thavorn, Kednapa [5 ,6 ]
Fernandes, Julio [7 ,8 ]
Santaguida, Carlo [9 ]
Desmeules, Francois [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Montreal, Fac Med, Sch Rehabil, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[2] Univ Montreal, Maisonneuve Rosemt Hosp Res Ctr, Affiliated Res Ctr, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] Paris Diderot Univ, Fac Med, INSERM ECEVE 1123, Paris, France
[4] Univ Orleans, Physiotherapy Sch, Orleans, France
[5] Univ Ottawa, Sch Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[6] Ottawa Hosp, Res Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[7] Univ Montreal, Hop Sacre Coeur Montreal Res Ctr, Affiliated Res Ctr, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[8] Univ Montreal, Fac Med, Dept Surg, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[9] McGill Univ, Fac Med, Dept Neurol & Neurosurg, Hlth Ctr, Montreal, PQ, Canada
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
Physical therapy specialty; Physical therapists; Health planning; Economics; Cost analysis; health care costs; Health expenditures; Physiotherapy; Physical therapy" and "advanced practice; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS; ORTHOPEDIC OUTPATIENTS; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; MANAGEMENT; DOCTORS; ADDRESS; CLINICS; BURDEN; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1186/s12913-021-07221-6
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background The objective of this systematic review is to appraise evidence on the economic evaluations of advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) care compared to usual medical care. Methods Systematic searches were conducted up to September 2021 in selected electronic bibliographical databases. Economic evaluation studies on an APP model of care were included. Economic data such as health care costs, patient costs, productivity losses were extracted. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Meta-analyses were performed and mean differences (MD) in costs per patient were calculated using random-effect inverse variance models. Certainty of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE Approach. Results Twelve studies (n = 14,649 participants) including four randomized controlled trials, seven analytical cohort studies and one economic modeling study were included. The clinical settings of APP models of care included primary, emergency and specialized secondary care such as orthopaedics, paediatrics and gynaecology. The majority of the included participants were adults with musculoskeletal disorders (n = 12,915). Based on low quality evidence, health system costs including salaries, diagnostic tests, medications, and follow-up visits were significantly lower with APP care than with usual medical care, at 2 to 12-month follow-up (MD: - 145.02 euro/patient; 95%CI: - 251.89 to - 38.14; n = 7648). Based on low quality evidence, patient costs including travel and paid medication prescriptions, or treatments were significantly higher with APP care compared to usual medical care, at 2 to 6-month follow-up (MD: 22.18 euro/patient; 95%CI: 0.40 to 43.96; n = 1485). Based on very low quality evidence, no significant differences in productivity losses per patient were reported between both types of care (MD: 450 euro/patient; 95%CI: - 80 to 970; n = 819). Conclusions This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the economic evaluation of APP models of care. Low quality evidence suggests that APP care might result in lower health care costs, but higher patient costs compared to usual medical care. Costs differences may vary depending on various factors such as the cost methodology used and on the clinical setting. More evidence is needed to evaluate cost benefits of APP models of care.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Costs of multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analyses
    Phuong Bich Tran
    Joseph Kazibwe
    Georgios F. Nikolaidis
    Ismo Linnosmaa
    Mieke Rijken
    Josefien van Olmen
    BMC Medicine, 20
  • [22] Frostbite treatment: a systematic review with meta-analyses
    Ivo B. Regli
    Rosmarie Oberhammer
    Ken Zafren
    Hermann Brugger
    Giacomo Strapazzon
    Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 31
  • [23] Meta-Analyses in Survey Methodology: A Systematic Review
    Cehovin, Gregor
    Bosnjak, Michael
    Manfreda, Katja Lozar
    PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, 2018, 82 (04) : 641 - 660
  • [24] Polymorphisms and AR: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
    Xiang, Feng
    Zeng, Zhen
    Wang, Lu
    Yang, Ye Peng
    Zhang, Qin Xiu
    FRONTIERS IN GENETICS, 2022, 13
  • [25] Costs of multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analyses
    Tran, Phuong Bich
    Kazibwe, Joseph
    Nikolaidis, Georgios F.
    Linnosmaa, Ismo
    Rijken, Mieke
    van Olmen, Josefien
    BMC MEDICINE, 2022, 20 (01)
  • [26] Frostbite treatment: a systematic review with meta-analyses
    Regli, Ivo B.
    Oberhammer, Rosmarie
    Zafren, Ken
    Brugger, Hermann
    Strapazzon, Giacomo
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF TRAUMA RESUSCITATION & EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2023, 31 (01):
  • [27] Neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses for a daily practice
    Scerrati, Alba
    Ricciardi, Luca
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGICAL SCIENCES, 2022, 66 (05) : 389 - 390
  • [28] SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES: TOOLS FOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
    Sanchez-Meca, Julio
    Botella, Juan
    PAPELES DEL PSICOLOGO, 2010, 31 (01): : 7 - 17
  • [29] Importance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses for research and practice
    Wagenaar, AC
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 1999, 16 (01) : 9 - 11
  • [30] A systematic review and meta-analyses on animal models used in bone adhesive research
    Van Erk, Machteld
    Van Luijk, Judith
    Yang, Fang
    Leeuwenburgh, Sander C. G.
    Sanchez-Fernandez, Maria J.
    Hermans, Erik
    Lanao, Rosa P. Felix
    Van Goor, Harry
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH, 2022, 40 (03) : 624 - 633