针对癌症治疗中不平等现象的干预措施的经济评估:系统回顾。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2024.09.010
Bedasa Taye Merga, Nikki McCaffrey, Suzanne Robinson, Ebisa Turi, Anita Lal
{"title":"针对癌症治疗中不平等现象的干预措施的经济评估:系统回顾。","authors":"Bedasa Taye Merga, Nikki McCaffrey, Suzanne Robinson, Ebisa Turi, Anita Lal","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.09.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Although substantial evidence exists on the costs and benefits of cancer care and screening programs for the general population, economic evidence of interventions addressing inequalities is less well known. This systematic review summarized economic evaluations of interventions addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care to inform decision makers on the value for money of such interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published from database inception to October 27, 2023. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were economic evaluations of interventions to improve or address inequalities in cancer care among disadvantaged population groups. Study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results (US dollars 2023) were summarized. Study quality was assessed by 2 authors using the Drummond checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The searches yielded 2937 records, with 30 meeting the eligibility criteria for data extraction. In most of the studies (n = 27, 90%), interventions were considered cost-effective in addressing inequalities in cancer care and screening among disadvantaged populations. Notably, 60% of the studies were rated as high quality, 33.3% as good, and 6.7% as fair quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review identified cost-effective strategies addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care that have the potential to be replicated in other locations. The interventions were mainly focused on screening programs, and few addressed equity gaps around risk reduction and diagnostic and treatment outcomes. This underscores the need for targeted approaches to address inequalities in under-researched priority population groups along the cancer care continuum.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic Evaluations of Interventions Addressing Inequalities in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Bedasa Taye Merga, Nikki McCaffrey, Suzanne Robinson, Ebisa Turi, Anita Lal\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2024.09.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Although substantial evidence exists on the costs and benefits of cancer care and screening programs for the general population, economic evidence of interventions addressing inequalities is less well known. This systematic review summarized economic evaluations of interventions addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care to inform decision makers on the value for money of such interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published from database inception to October 27, 2023. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were economic evaluations of interventions to improve or address inequalities in cancer care among disadvantaged population groups. Study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results (US dollars 2023) were summarized. Study quality was assessed by 2 authors using the Drummond checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The searches yielded 2937 records, with 30 meeting the eligibility criteria for data extraction. In most of the studies (n = 27, 90%), interventions were considered cost-effective in addressing inequalities in cancer care and screening among disadvantaged populations. Notably, 60% of the studies were rated as high quality, 33.3% as good, and 6.7% as fair quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review identified cost-effective strategies addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care that have the potential to be replicated in other locations. The interventions were mainly focused on screening programs, and few addressed equity gaps around risk reduction and diagnostic and treatment outcomes. This underscores the need for targeted approaches to address inequalities in under-researched priority population groups along the cancer care continuum.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"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.2024.09.010\",\"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.2024.09.010","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

目的:尽管已有大量证据表明癌症护理和筛查项目对普通人群的成本和效益,但解决不平等问题的干预措施的经济证据却鲜为人知。本系统性综述总结了针对癌症筛查和护理中不平等现象的干预措施的经济评价,以告知决策者此类干预措施的资金价值:方法:在 Embase、Medline、Cochrane Library、EconLit 和 Scopus 数据库中检索了自数据库建立至 2023 年 10 月 27 日期间发表的研究。如果研究是对改善或解决弱势群体癌症护理不平等问题的干预措施进行经济评估,则符合纳入条件。对研究特点和成本效益结果(2023 美元)进行总结。研究质量由两位作者使用 Drummond 检查表进行评估:搜索共获得 2,937 条记录,其中 30 条符合数据提取的资格标准。在大多数研究(27 项,占 90%)中,干预措施被认为在解决弱势人群癌症治疗和筛查中的不平等方面具有成本效益。60%的研究被评为高质量,33.3%被评为良好,6.7%被评为一般质量:本系统综述确定了解决癌症筛查和护理不平等问题的具有成本效益的策略,这些策略有可能在其他地方推广。干预措施主要集中在筛查计划上,很少有干预措施能解决降低风险、诊断和治疗结果方面的公平差距。这突出表明,有必要采取有针对性的方法来解决癌症治疗过程中研究不足的重点人群的不平等问题。
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
Economic Evaluations of Interventions Addressing Inequalities in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: Although substantial evidence exists on the costs and benefits of cancer care and screening programs for the general population, economic evidence of interventions addressing inequalities is less well known. This systematic review summarized economic evaluations of interventions addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care to inform decision makers on the value for money of such interventions.

Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published from database inception to October 27, 2023. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were economic evaluations of interventions to improve or address inequalities in cancer care among disadvantaged population groups. Study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results (US dollars 2023) were summarized. Study quality was assessed by 2 authors using the Drummond checklist.

Results: The searches yielded 2937 records, with 30 meeting the eligibility criteria for data extraction. In most of the studies (n = 27, 90%), interventions were considered cost-effective in addressing inequalities in cancer care and screening among disadvantaged populations. Notably, 60% of the studies were rated as high quality, 33.3% as good, and 6.7% as fair quality.

Conclusions: This systematic review identified cost-effective strategies addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care that have the potential to be replicated in other locations. The interventions were mainly focused on screening programs, and few addressed equity gaps around risk reduction and diagnostic and treatment outcomes. This underscores the need for targeted approaches to address inequalities in under-researched priority population groups along the cancer care continuum.

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
Value Attribution for Combination Treatments: Two Potential Solutions for an Insoluble Problem. Evaluating the health and economic impacts of return-to-work interventions: a modelling study. Exploring social preferences for health and wellbeing across the digital divide. A qualitative investigation based on tasks taken from an online discrete choice experiment. Quantifying low-value care in Germany: An observational study using statutory health insurance data from 2018 to 2021. Indirect Costs of Alzheimer's Disease: Unpaid Caregiver Burden and Patient Productivity Loss.
×
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