衡量和评估非正式护理的方法:中风的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2024-07-06 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.007
Neha Das, Phuong Nguyen, Thi Quynh Anh Ho, Peter Lee, Suzanne Robinson, Lan Gao
{"title":"衡量和评估非正式护理的方法:中风的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Neha Das, Phuong Nguyen, Thi Quynh Anh Ho, Peter Lee, Suzanne Robinson, Lan Gao","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To accurately capture informal care in healthcare evaluations, rigorous approaches are required to measure and value this important care component. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we intended to summarize the current methods of measuring and valuing informal care costs in healthcare evaluations (full and partial healthcare evaluations, including cost of illness and cost analysis) in stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL. We used EndNote 20, Research Screener, and Covidence platforms for screening and data extraction. A meta-analysis was performed on informal care hours, and a subgroup meta-analysis was conducted based on stroke severity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 31 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. There was variation among the studies in the informal care measurement and valuation approaches. The meta-analysis of studies where data on informal care hours were available showed an estimate of informal care hours of 25.76 per week (95% CI 13.36-38.16) with a high heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 99.97%). The overall risk of bias in the studies was assessed as low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Standardizing the measurement and valuation of informal care costs is essential for improving the consistency and comparability of economic evaluations. Pilot studies that incorporate standardized informal care cost valuation methods can help identify any practical challenges and capture the impact of informal care more accurately.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods for Measuring and Valuing Informal Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Stroke.\",\"authors\":\"Neha Das, Phuong Nguyen, Thi Quynh Anh Ho, Peter Lee, Suzanne Robinson, Lan Gao\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To accurately capture informal care in healthcare evaluations, rigorous approaches are required to measure and value this important care component. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we intended to summarize the current methods of measuring and valuing informal care costs in healthcare evaluations (full and partial healthcare evaluations, including cost of illness and cost analysis) in stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL. We used EndNote 20, Research Screener, and Covidence platforms for screening and data extraction. A meta-analysis was performed on informal care hours, and a subgroup meta-analysis was conducted based on stroke severity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 31 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. There was variation among the studies in the informal care measurement and valuation approaches. The meta-analysis of studies where data on informal care hours were available showed an estimate of informal care hours of 25.76 per week (95% CI 13.36-38.16) with a high heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 99.97%). The overall risk of bias in the studies was assessed as low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Standardizing the measurement and valuation of informal care costs is essential for improving the consistency and comparability of economic evaluations. Pilot studies that incorporate standardized informal care cost valuation methods can help identify any practical challenges and capture the impact of informal care more accurately.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.007\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.007","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:为了在医疗保健评估中准确捕捉非正式护理,需要采用严格的方法来衡量和估价这一重要的护理组成部分。在本系统综述和荟萃分析中,我们旨在总结目前在中风的医疗评估(全面和部分医疗评估,包括疾病成本和成本分析)中衡量和估价非正式护理成本的方法:在 Medline、Embase、EconLIT 和 CINAHL 中进行了系统检索。我们使用 EndNote 20、Research Screener 和 Covidence 平台进行筛选和数据提取。对非正式护理时间进行了荟萃分析,并根据中风严重程度进行了分组荟萃分析:定性综合共纳入 31 篇文章。各研究在非正式照护的测量和评估方法上存在差异。对有非正规照护时数数据的研究进行的荟萃分析表明,每周非正规照护时数估计为 25.76 小时(95% 置信区间 [CI]:13.36-38.16):13.36-38.16),异质性较高(I2=99.97%)。研究的总体偏倚风险被评估为低:要提高经济评估的一致性和可比性,必须对非正规护理成本的测量和估值进行标准化。采用标准化非正规护理成本估价方法的试点研究有助于确定任何实际挑战,并更准确地捕捉非正规护理的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Methods for Measuring and Valuing Informal Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Stroke.

Objectives: To accurately capture informal care in healthcare evaluations, rigorous approaches are required to measure and value this important care component. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we intended to summarize the current methods of measuring and valuing informal care costs in healthcare evaluations (full and partial healthcare evaluations, including cost of illness and cost analysis) in stroke.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL. We used EndNote 20, Research Screener, and Covidence platforms for screening and data extraction. A meta-analysis was performed on informal care hours, and a subgroup meta-analysis was conducted based on stroke severity.

Results: A total of 31 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. There was variation among the studies in the informal care measurement and valuation approaches. The meta-analysis of studies where data on informal care hours were available showed an estimate of informal care hours of 25.76 per week (95% CI 13.36-38.16) with a high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.97%). The overall risk of bias in the studies was assessed as low.

Conclusions: Standardizing the measurement and valuation of informal care costs is essential for improving the consistency and comparability of economic evaluations. Pilot studies that incorporate standardized informal care cost valuation methods can help identify any practical challenges and capture the impact of informal care more accurately.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
期刊最新文献
Analytical Methods for Comparing Uncontrolled Trials with External Controls from Real-World Data: a Systematic Literature Review and Comparison to European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Practice. Author Reply to "Cost-of/Burden-of-Illness Studies: Steps Backward?" Author Reply. Table of Contents Editorial Board
×
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