A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Clinical Nursing Practices

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Journal of Nursing Management Pub Date : 2024-08-09 DOI:10.1155/2024/9939254
Yushan Guan, Nan Ru, Ruifu Kang, Xiangping Jia, Tingting Xu, Zhaolin Meng
{"title":"A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Clinical Nursing Practices","authors":"Yushan Guan,&nbsp;Nan Ru,&nbsp;Ruifu Kang,&nbsp;Xiangping Jia,&nbsp;Tingting Xu,&nbsp;Zhaolin Meng","doi":"10.1155/2024/9939254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Background</i>. The misallocation of scarce healthcare resources globally raises concerns regarding the underuse of high-value care and the overuse of low-value care. Economic evaluations can help policy makers determine whether an intervention presents a better value for money and desirable clinical benefits, thus realizing value-based care. <i>Aim</i>. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic evaluations of clinical nursing practices to advance knowledge on value-based care. <i>Methods</i>. A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Tufts CEA Registry for full economic evaluations of clinical nursing practices from January 2013 to January 2023. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental cost-benefit ratios, incremental net benefit, and the differences in costs for cost-minimization studies. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria–extended checklist. Results were synthesized using permutation matrices for all studies. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023415918). <i>Results</i>. Thirty-five studies were included in this review, with 27 studies categorized as good methodological quality and 8 as moderate quality. Clinical nursing practices were dominant (i.e., more effective and less costly) in 19 studies, potentially cost-effective depending on willingness-to-pay thresholds in 15 studies, and were dominated (i.e., less effective and more costly) in 1 study. <i>Conclusion</i>. Our study advanced knowledge on value-based care for clinical nursing practices. Results suggest that most clinical nursing practices studied may be clearly economically favourable or potentially favourable. <i>Implications for Nursing Management</i>. The results of this review provide valuable insights into value-based care in nursing and facilitate the decision-making of healthcare policymakers regarding health resource allocation to achieve value-based care.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49297,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/9939254","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nursing Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/9939254","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. The misallocation of scarce healthcare resources globally raises concerns regarding the underuse of high-value care and the overuse of low-value care. Economic evaluations can help policy makers determine whether an intervention presents a better value for money and desirable clinical benefits, thus realizing value-based care. Aim. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic evaluations of clinical nursing practices to advance knowledge on value-based care. Methods. A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Tufts CEA Registry for full economic evaluations of clinical nursing practices from January 2013 to January 2023. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental cost-benefit ratios, incremental net benefit, and the differences in costs for cost-minimization studies. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria–extended checklist. Results were synthesized using permutation matrices for all studies. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023415918). Results. Thirty-five studies were included in this review, with 27 studies categorized as good methodological quality and 8 as moderate quality. Clinical nursing practices were dominant (i.e., more effective and less costly) in 19 studies, potentially cost-effective depending on willingness-to-pay thresholds in 15 studies, and were dominated (i.e., less effective and more costly) in 1 study. Conclusion. Our study advanced knowledge on value-based care for clinical nursing practices. Results suggest that most clinical nursing practices studied may be clearly economically favourable or potentially favourable. Implications for Nursing Management. The results of this review provide valuable insights into value-based care in nursing and facilitate the decision-making of healthcare policymakers regarding health resource allocation to achieve value-based care.

Abstract Image

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
临床护理实践中的经济评估系统回顾
背景。全球范围内稀缺医疗资源的分配不当引发了人们对高价值医疗使用不足和低价值医疗过度使用的担忧。经济评估可以帮助政策制定者确定一项干预措施是否具有更高的性价比和理想的临床效益,从而实现基于价值的医疗服务。目的我们旨在对临床护理实践的经济评价进行系统回顾,以促进对基于价值的护理的了解。方法。我们使用 MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、CINAHL、NHS Economic Evaluation Database、Health Technology Assessment 和 Tufts CEA Registry 对 2013 年 1 月至 2023 年 1 月期间临床护理实践的完整经济评估进行了系统性回顾。结果包括增量成本效益比、增量成本效用比、增量成本效益比、增量净效益以及成本最小化研究的成本差异。方法学质量采用共识卫生经济学标准扩展检查表进行评估。所有研究结果均采用置换矩阵进行综合。研究方案已在 PROSPERO 注册(CRD42023415918)。结果本综述共纳入 35 项研究,其中 27 项研究的方法学质量良好,8 项研究的方法学质量中等。在 19 项研究中,临床护理实践占主导地位(即更有效、成本更低);在 15 项研究中,根据支付意愿阈值,临床护理实践可能具有成本效益;在 1 项研究中,临床护理实践占主导地位(即更无效、成本更高)。结论。我们的研究增进了临床护理实践中基于价值的护理知识。结果表明,所研究的大多数临床护理实践在经济上明显有利或可能有利。对护理管理的启示。本综述的结果为护理领域的价值导向护理提供了有价值的见解,有助于医疗决策者在医疗资源分配方面做出决策,以实现价值导向护理。
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
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
14.50%
发文量
377
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Nursing Management is an international forum which informs and advances the discipline of nursing management and leadership. The Journal encourages scholarly debate and critical analysis resulting in a rich source of evidence which underpins and illuminates the practice of management, innovation and leadership in nursing and health care. It publishes current issues and developments in practice in the form of research papers, in-depth commentaries and analyses. The complex and rapidly changing nature of global health care is constantly generating new challenges and questions. The Journal of Nursing Management welcomes papers from researchers, academics, practitioners, managers, and policy makers from a range of countries and backgrounds which examine these issues and contribute to the body of knowledge in international nursing management and leadership worldwide. The Journal of Nursing Management aims to: -Inform practitioners and researchers in nursing management and leadership -Explore and debate current issues in nursing management and leadership -Assess the evidence for current practice -Develop best practice in nursing management and leadership -Examine the impact of policy developments -Address issues in governance, quality and safety
期刊最新文献
A Cross-Sectional Survey of Swedish Primary Healthcare Nurses’ Discontent With Their Current Job Determinants of First-Line Nurse Managers’ Span of Control: A Delphi Study The Impact of Medical Explainable Artificial Intelligence on Nurses’ Innovation Behaviour: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach Exploring the Influence of Demographic Factors and Flourishing on Workplace Distractions: A Cross-Country Analysis Identifying Accessibility and Equity Defects of Elderly Care Services in Developing Countries: Insights From Xiamen City
×
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