The costs and cost-effectiveness of different service models of palliative care, focusing on end of life care: A rapid review

Llinos Haf Spencer, Bethany Fern Anthony, Jacob Davies, Kalpa Pisavadia, Elizabeth Gillen, Jane Noyes, Deborah Fitzsimmons, Ruth Lewis, Alison Cooper, Dyfrig Hughes, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Adrian Edwards
{"title":"The costs and cost-effectiveness of different service models of palliative care, focusing on end of life care: A rapid review","authors":"Llinos Haf Spencer, Bethany Fern Anthony, Jacob Davies, Kalpa Pisavadia, Elizabeth Gillen, Jane Noyes, Deborah Fitzsimmons, Ruth Lewis, Alison Cooper, Dyfrig Hughes, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Adrian Edwards","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.06.24303850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Some people receive palliative or end of life care at home, others in hospitals or hospices, or a combination of home and hospice/home and hospital models. This rapid review aims to determine the costs and cost-effectiveness of different service models of palliative care or end of life care. These studies are mostly conducted from the perspective of the healthcare system, disregarding costs related to patients/caregivers economic burden (Perea-Bello et al., 2023). Research Implications and Evidence Gaps: More UK research is needed on cost impacts of new services such as Enhanced Supported Care (ESC). Future research should consider which methods are most appropriate to evaluate palliative care models. Standard methodology, such as the calculation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), may not be most appropriate for this end of life population. Improving QALYs may not be the intended aim of palliative care or end of life interventions, and prolonging death may be inconsistent with patient preferences and wishes. The quality and applicability of the evidence we found in our rapid review were variable, and therefore, uncertainty remains, especially when the perspective of analysis was not stated clearly. Therefore, it was difficult to ascertain whether all relevant costs were considered. Assumptions on costs were not varied in many studies, and most studies had different time horizons. Policy and Practice Implications: This rapid review has shown that hospital-based palliative care costs are higher than hospice or home-based palliative care. This suggests that home-based palliative care should be available to all patients in a recognisable end of life phase who desire to remain and die at home. Healthcare planners should aim to reduce hospitalisation at the end of life but only if access to quality home care at the end of life is guaranteed. Patients should have a choice about where they prefer to die without moving the costs from the healthcare system to the home caregivers, rendering the costs invisible.","PeriodicalId":501386,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.06.24303850","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Some people receive palliative or end of life care at home, others in hospitals or hospices, or a combination of home and hospice/home and hospital models. This rapid review aims to determine the costs and cost-effectiveness of different service models of palliative care or end of life care. These studies are mostly conducted from the perspective of the healthcare system, disregarding costs related to patients/caregivers economic burden (Perea-Bello et al., 2023). Research Implications and Evidence Gaps: More UK research is needed on cost impacts of new services such as Enhanced Supported Care (ESC). Future research should consider which methods are most appropriate to evaluate palliative care models. Standard methodology, such as the calculation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), may not be most appropriate for this end of life population. Improving QALYs may not be the intended aim of palliative care or end of life interventions, and prolonging death may be inconsistent with patient preferences and wishes. The quality and applicability of the evidence we found in our rapid review were variable, and therefore, uncertainty remains, especially when the perspective of analysis was not stated clearly. Therefore, it was difficult to ascertain whether all relevant costs were considered. Assumptions on costs were not varied in many studies, and most studies had different time horizons. Policy and Practice Implications: This rapid review has shown that hospital-based palliative care costs are higher than hospice or home-based palliative care. This suggests that home-based palliative care should be available to all patients in a recognisable end of life phase who desire to remain and die at home. Healthcare planners should aim to reduce hospitalisation at the end of life but only if access to quality home care at the end of life is guaranteed. Patients should have a choice about where they prefer to die without moving the costs from the healthcare system to the home caregivers, rendering the costs invisible.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同姑息关怀服务模式的成本和成本效益,重点是生命末期关怀:快速审查
有些人在家中接受姑息关怀或生命末期关怀,有些人在医院或临终关怀机构接受姑息关怀或生命末期关怀,有些人则将家庭与临终关怀机构/家庭与医院模式结合起来接受姑息关怀或生命末期关怀。本快速综述旨在确定姑息关怀或生命末期关怀的不同服务模式的成本和成本效益。这些研究大多从医疗保健系统的角度出发,忽略了与患者/护理人员经济负担相关的成本(Perea-Bello 等人,2023 年)。研究意义和证据差距:英国需要对增强型支持护理(ESC)等新服务的成本影响进行更多研究。未来的研究应考虑哪些方法最适合评估姑息关怀模式。标准方法,如计算质量调整生命年(QALYs),可能并不最适合这一生命末期人群。提高 QALYs 可能并不是姑息关怀或生命末期干预的预期目标,延长死亡时间也可能不符合患者的偏好和意愿。我们在快速综述中发现的证据的质量和适用性参差不齐,因此仍存在不确定性,尤其是在分析角度没有明确说明的情况下。因此,很难确定是否考虑了所有相关成本。许多研究对成本的假设不尽相同,而且大多数研究的时间跨度不同。政策与实践意义:本次快速综述显示,医院姑息关怀的成本高于临终关怀或居家姑息关怀。这表明,居家姑息关怀应适用于所有处于生命末期、希望留在家中或在家中去世的病人。医疗保健规划者应致力于减少生命末期的住院治疗,但前提是必须保证患者在生命末期能够获得高质量的居家姑息关怀服务。病人应该可以选择自己喜欢的死亡地点,而不需要将费用从医疗系统转移到家庭护理人员身上,从而使费用无形化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
"WE CAN ALL CONTRIBUTE IN OUR OWN WAY" : KNOWLEDGE MOBILIZATION TOOLS TO PROMOTE BEST PRACTICES IN UNIVERSAL ACCESSIBILITY Geospatial Analysis of the Association between Medicaid Ex-pansion, Minimum Wage Policies, and Alzheimer's Disease Dementia Prevalence in the United States The clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions for preventing continence issues resulting from birth trauma: a rapid review Supporting women, girls and people who menstruate to participate in physical activity - Rapid evidence summary Performance of the Washington Group Questions in Measuring Blindness and Deafness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1