Debra Mitchell, Stephen Maloney, Luke Robinson, Terry Haines, Jonathan Foo
{"title":"Costs and economic impact of student-led clinics-A systematic review.","authors":"Debra Mitchell, Stephen Maloney, Luke Robinson, Terry Haines, Jonathan Foo","doi":"10.1111/medu.15550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Student-led clinics generate a range of benefits to multiple stakeholder groups. Students receive important educational opportunities to advance in their training. Patients with limited access to care may access effective care or a higher amount of effective care and so reduce burden on the health care system. The financial viability of student-led clinics run by universities is uncertain, and establishing this is complicated by the range of stakeholder costs and benefits that may be involved. This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence related to the costs and benefits of student-led clinics and report the methods that have been used to measure these costs and benefits.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE All, PsychInfo, CINAHL, A+ Education (Informit), ERIC (ProQuest) and ProQuest Education databases for studies that reported the costs and/or economic benefits of student-led clinics from inception through August 2023. Studies were screened for eligibility, and data were extracted including study characteristics, student-led clinic description and economic outcomes. A narrative synthesis was undertaken due to the heterogeneity of studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 349 potentially eligible studies, 24 were included. Nine studies (38%) used an outcome description-monetised approach; four used partial economic evaluation (17%); four employed cost description (17%); two used cost approximation (8%); two used cost analyses (8%); and one was a full economic analysis (4%). Studies examined costs or benefits, from the perspective of a range of stakeholders, but few examined both. Only six studies (25%) had established the clinical effectiveness of their service. Student clinics generate costs for universities in supplying supervision, capital and consumables. Benefits are shared by patients, students, universities and the broader health system, however, economic evaluations to date have largely ignored or not monetised/valued these benefits.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Student-led clinics involve many different stakeholders, each of whom may incur costs and reap benefits. This complicates how we can go about trying to establish the economic efficiency and viability of student-led clinics. Measurement of both costs and benefits is needed to understand the efficiency of student-led clinics in comparison to alternatives. Without the full picture, decision-makers may make decisions that are ill-informed and lead to a loss of benefit for society.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15550","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Student-led clinics generate a range of benefits to multiple stakeholder groups. Students receive important educational opportunities to advance in their training. Patients with limited access to care may access effective care or a higher amount of effective care and so reduce burden on the health care system. The financial viability of student-led clinics run by universities is uncertain, and establishing this is complicated by the range of stakeholder costs and benefits that may be involved. This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence related to the costs and benefits of student-led clinics and report the methods that have been used to measure these costs and benefits.
Method: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE All, PsychInfo, CINAHL, A+ Education (Informit), ERIC (ProQuest) and ProQuest Education databases for studies that reported the costs and/or economic benefits of student-led clinics from inception through August 2023. Studies were screened for eligibility, and data were extracted including study characteristics, student-led clinic description and economic outcomes. A narrative synthesis was undertaken due to the heterogeneity of studies.
Results: Of 349 potentially eligible studies, 24 were included. Nine studies (38%) used an outcome description-monetised approach; four used partial economic evaluation (17%); four employed cost description (17%); two used cost approximation (8%); two used cost analyses (8%); and one was a full economic analysis (4%). Studies examined costs or benefits, from the perspective of a range of stakeholders, but few examined both. Only six studies (25%) had established the clinical effectiveness of their service. Student clinics generate costs for universities in supplying supervision, capital and consumables. Benefits are shared by patients, students, universities and the broader health system, however, economic evaluations to date have largely ignored or not monetised/valued these benefits.
Conclusions: Student-led clinics involve many different stakeholders, each of whom may incur costs and reap benefits. This complicates how we can go about trying to establish the economic efficiency and viability of student-led clinics. Measurement of both costs and benefits is needed to understand the efficiency of student-led clinics in comparison to alternatives. Without the full picture, decision-makers may make decisions that are ill-informed and lead to a loss of benefit for society.
期刊介绍:
Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives.
The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including;
-undergraduate education
-postgraduate training
-continuing professional development
-interprofessional education