Merits of the social return on investment methodology for assessing the value of palliative care programmes.

IF 13.4 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Lancet Healthy Longevity Pub Date : 2025-01-15 DOI:10.1016/j.lanhl.2024.100669
Olivia Monton, Emmanuel F Drabo, Shannon Fuller, Fabian M Johnston
{"title":"Merits of the social return on investment methodology for assessing the value of palliative care programmes.","authors":"Olivia Monton, Emmanuel F Drabo, Shannon Fuller, Fabian M Johnston","doi":"10.1016/j.lanhl.2024.100669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the widely accepted benefits of palliative care for individuals with serious illnesses and their families, the utilisation of this approach remains low. Although an increased use of palliative care services can increase the value of health-care spending by providing comprehensive wraparound services to support care, the economic evidence required to implement, promote, and engage in palliative care models on a wide scale eludes the affected individuals, health-care providers, payers, and policy makers. This gap in evidence is partly owing to the methodological limitations of standard value-assessment frameworks, which do not capture important societal dimensions of the value generated by palliative care. This Personal View proposes the adoption of value-assessment frameworks that incorporate broader dimensions of social value into the evaluation of palliative care programmes. We focus on the social return on investment methodology as an example of a value-assessment framework that can complement standard frameworks to better capture the social impact and all-around benefits of palliative care.</p>","PeriodicalId":34394,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Healthy Longevity","volume":" ","pages":"100669"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Healthy Longevity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanhl.2024.100669","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the widely accepted benefits of palliative care for individuals with serious illnesses and their families, the utilisation of this approach remains low. Although an increased use of palliative care services can increase the value of health-care spending by providing comprehensive wraparound services to support care, the economic evidence required to implement, promote, and engage in palliative care models on a wide scale eludes the affected individuals, health-care providers, payers, and policy makers. This gap in evidence is partly owing to the methodological limitations of standard value-assessment frameworks, which do not capture important societal dimensions of the value generated by palliative care. This Personal View proposes the adoption of value-assessment frameworks that incorporate broader dimensions of social value into the evaluation of palliative care programmes. We focus on the social return on investment methodology as an example of a value-assessment framework that can complement standard frameworks to better capture the social impact and all-around benefits of palliative care.

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
评估姑息治疗方案价值的社会投资回报方法的优点。
尽管姑息治疗对患有严重疾病的个人及其家属的好处被广泛接受,但这种方法的使用率仍然很低。虽然增加姑息治疗服务的使用可以通过提供全面的一揽子服务来支持护理,从而增加卫生保健支出的价值,但在大范围内实施、促进和参与姑息治疗模式所需的经济证据却没有得到受影响的个人、卫生保健提供者、支付方和决策者的支持。证据方面的差距部分是由于标准价值评估框架在方法上的局限性,这些框架没有捕捉到姑息治疗产生的价值的重要社会层面。本个人观点建议采用价值评估框架,将更广泛的社会价值维度纳入姑息治疗方案的评估。我们将重点放在社会投资回报方法上,作为价值评估框架的一个例子,它可以补充标准框架,以更好地捕捉姑息治疗的社会影响和全面效益。
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
Lancet Healthy Longevity
Lancet Healthy Longevity GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
2.30%
发文量
192
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Healthy Longevity, a gold open-access journal, focuses on clinically-relevant longevity and healthy aging research. It covers early-stage clinical research on aging mechanisms, epidemiological studies, and societal research on changing populations. The journal includes clinical trials across disciplines, particularly in gerontology and age-specific clinical guidelines. In line with the Lancet family tradition, it advocates for the rights of all to healthy lives, emphasizing original research likely to impact clinical practice or thinking. Clinical and policy reviews also contribute to shaping the discourse in this rapidly growing discipline.
期刊最新文献
Merits of the social return on investment methodology for assessing the value of palliative care programmes. Risk prediction for health outcomes in type 2 diabetes: utility of a polysocial risk score? Health needs of older people and age-inclusive health care in humanitarian emergencies in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Assessment and management of frailty in individuals living with dementia: expert recommendations for clinical practice. Frailism: a scoping review exploring discrimination against people living with frailty.
×
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