Evaluations of health care delivery models in Australia: a scoping review protocol.

J. Roseleur, A. Partington, J. Karnon
{"title":"Evaluations of health care delivery models in Australia: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"J. Roseleur, A. Partington, J. Karnon","doi":"10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nThe aim of this review is to identify and describe the evidence base of published primary, comparative healthcare delivery model evaluations that require the employment of additional healthcare practitioners undertaken in Australia.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\nIn Australia, formal processes are utilized in assessing the value of new pharmaceuticals and medical services, which inform decisions on whether to list new items on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule and Medicare Benefits Schedule, respectively. There are no formal processes to aid in decision making on the funding of new, evaluated health care delivery models. This imbalance undervalues the available evidence on healthcare delivery models, leading to the sub-optimal allocation of resources between new health technologies and new healthcare delivery models within the Australian health system.\n\n\nINCLUSION CRITERIA\nEligible studies will evaluate healthcare delivery models that require the employment of additional healthcare practitioners (either to replace existing practitioners of another type or to provide new services). Studies must include a comparator to evaluate a condition of interest being treated using alternative healthcare delivery models, or no treatment, and will involve observation of outcomes over a similar period of time. Studies in any Australian setting will be included. Interventions aimed at primary preventions will be excluded.\n\n\nMETHODS\nPubMed, Embase and CINAHL will be searched for articles published from 2008. One reviewer will review titles, and then two reviewers will independently review abstracts to identify eligible studies. One reviewer will extract data on study characteristics and design. The results of the data extraction will be presented in a table with examples of case studies.","PeriodicalId":73539,"journal":{"name":"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00094","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The aim of this review is to identify and describe the evidence base of published primary, comparative healthcare delivery model evaluations that require the employment of additional healthcare practitioners undertaken in Australia. INTRODUCTION In Australia, formal processes are utilized in assessing the value of new pharmaceuticals and medical services, which inform decisions on whether to list new items on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule and Medicare Benefits Schedule, respectively. There are no formal processes to aid in decision making on the funding of new, evaluated health care delivery models. This imbalance undervalues the available evidence on healthcare delivery models, leading to the sub-optimal allocation of resources between new health technologies and new healthcare delivery models within the Australian health system. INCLUSION CRITERIA Eligible studies will evaluate healthcare delivery models that require the employment of additional healthcare practitioners (either to replace existing practitioners of another type or to provide new services). Studies must include a comparator to evaluate a condition of interest being treated using alternative healthcare delivery models, or no treatment, and will involve observation of outcomes over a similar period of time. Studies in any Australian setting will be included. Interventions aimed at primary preventions will be excluded. METHODS PubMed, Embase and CINAHL will be searched for articles published from 2008. One reviewer will review titles, and then two reviewers will independently review abstracts to identify eligible studies. One reviewer will extract data on study characteristics and design. The results of the data extraction will be presented in a table with examples of case studies.
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
澳大利亚保健服务模式评价:范围审查方案。
目的:本综述的目的是识别和描述已发表的初级、比较医疗服务模式评估的证据基础,这些评估需要在澳大利亚雇用更多的医疗从业人员。在澳大利亚,评估新药品和医疗服务的价值采用了正式程序,这些程序分别为决定是否将新项目列入药品福利计划和医疗保险福利计划提供信息。没有正式的程序来帮助为新的、经过评估的卫生保健提供模式提供资金的决策。这种不平衡低估了医疗服务模式的现有证据,导致澳大利亚卫生系统内新卫生技术和新医疗服务模式之间的资源分配不理想。纳入标准:符合条件的研究将评估需要雇佣额外的医疗从业人员的医疗服务模式(要么取代现有的另一种类型的从业人员,要么提供新的服务)。研究必须包括一个比较者,以评估是否使用替代医疗保健提供模式进行治疗,或不进行治疗,并将包括在相似时间段内观察结果。在任何澳大利亚环境下的研究都将包括在内。旨在初级预防的干预措施将被排除在外。方法在spubmed、Embase和CINAHL检索2008年以来发表的文章。一名审稿人将审查标题,然后两名审稿人将独立审查摘要以确定合格的研究。一位审稿人将提取有关研究特征和设计的数据。数据提取的结果将在一个带有案例研究示例的表格中提出。
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
Post-discharge interventions to enhance coping skills for survivors of stroke and their caregivers: a scoping review protocol. Approaches to implementing individual placement and support in the health and welfare sectors: a scoping review protocol. Obesity and dental caries in early childhood: a systematic review protocol. Experiences of family caregivers caring for critically ill children hospitalized in a pediatric intensive care unit: a qualitative systematic review protocol. Hernioplasty using low-cost mesh compared to surgical mesh in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol.
×
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