用于为轻度痴呆症或轻度认知障碍患者及其护理人员提供护理支持的科技干预措施的经济评估:系统综述。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Pub Date : 2024-11-08 DOI:10.1177/13872877241291070
Ana Magdalena Vargas-Martínez
{"title":"用于为轻度痴呆症或轻度认知障碍患者及其护理人员提供护理支持的科技干预措施的经济评估:系统综述。","authors":"Ana Magdalena Vargas-Martínez","doi":"10.1177/13872877241291070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The cost-effectiveness of interventions is a key issue owing to the limited resources of healthcare services.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of technology-based healthcare interventions in care support for people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and their caregivers, and of the tools used to assess effectiveness and costs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The following databases were used: PubMed, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment. A total of 207 articles from 2012 to 2024 were identified and then screened.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen studies were included, of which nine were study protocols. Almost half (n = 8) the interventions were multicomponent. The most common components used in the interventions were cognitive stimulation, physical functioning and continuing support. Regarding the efficiency results of these interventions, only three studies provided a full economic evaluation. The most frequent tools in the economic evaluations used to measure effectiveness (measured in quality-adjusted life years) and costs were the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and Resource Utilization in Dementia instruments, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most of the interventions evaluated were cost-effective. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, given the scarcity of the literature, and further economic evaluations of technology-based healthcare interventions for people with mild dementia or MCI care support and their caregivers are therefore needed. Additionally, a meta-analysis could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the data.</p>","PeriodicalId":14929,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic evaluations of technology-based interventions used to provide care support for people with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment and their caregivers: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Ana Magdalena Vargas-Martínez\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13872877241291070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The cost-effectiveness of interventions is a key issue owing to the limited resources of healthcare services.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of technology-based healthcare interventions in care support for people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and their caregivers, and of the tools used to assess effectiveness and costs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The following databases were used: PubMed, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment. A total of 207 articles from 2012 to 2024 were identified and then screened.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen studies were included, of which nine were study protocols. Almost half (n = 8) the interventions were multicomponent. The most common components used in the interventions were cognitive stimulation, physical functioning and continuing support. Regarding the efficiency results of these interventions, only three studies provided a full economic evaluation. The most frequent tools in the economic evaluations used to measure effectiveness (measured in quality-adjusted life years) and costs were the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and Resource Utilization in Dementia instruments, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most of the interventions evaluated were cost-effective. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, given the scarcity of the literature, and further economic evaluations of technology-based healthcare interventions for people with mild dementia or MCI care support and their caregivers are therefore needed. Additionally, a meta-analysis could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877241291070\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877241291070","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于医疗服务资源有限,干预措施的成本效益是一个关键问题:由于医疗服务资源有限,干预措施的成本效益是一个关键问题:对痴呆症或轻度认知障碍(MCI)患者及其护理人员护理支持中基于技术的医疗保健干预措施的经济评估,以及用于评估有效性和成本的工具进行系统性回顾:方法:使用了以下数据库:方法:使用了以下数据库:PubMed、国家卫生服务经济评估数据库和卫生技术评估。结果:共收录了 17 项研究,其中有 3 项研究的研究者为老年痴呆症患者,有 2 项研究的研究者为老年痴呆症患者的护理者:结果:共纳入 17 项研究,其中 9 项为研究方案。近一半(n = 8)的干预措施由多个部分组成。干预措施中最常用的组成部分是认知刺激、身体功能和持续支持。关于这些干预措施的效率结果,只有三项研究提供了全面的经济评估。经济评价中最常用的衡量有效性(以质量调整生命年衡量)和成本的工具分别是欧洲生活质量-5维度和痴呆症资源利用工具:大多数接受评估的干预措施都具有成本效益。然而,鉴于文献资料的匮乏,在解释这些结果时应谨慎,因此需要对轻度痴呆症或 MCI 护理支持患者及其护理人员的基于技术的医疗保健干预措施进行进一步的经济评估。此外,由于数据的异质性,无法进行荟萃分析。
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 technology-based interventions used to provide care support for people with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment and their caregivers: A systematic review.

Background: The cost-effectiveness of interventions is a key issue owing to the limited resources of healthcare services.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of technology-based healthcare interventions in care support for people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and their caregivers, and of the tools used to assess effectiveness and costs.

Methods: The following databases were used: PubMed, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment. A total of 207 articles from 2012 to 2024 were identified and then screened.

Results: Seventeen studies were included, of which nine were study protocols. Almost half (n = 8) the interventions were multicomponent. The most common components used in the interventions were cognitive stimulation, physical functioning and continuing support. Regarding the efficiency results of these interventions, only three studies provided a full economic evaluation. The most frequent tools in the economic evaluations used to measure effectiveness (measured in quality-adjusted life years) and costs were the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and Resource Utilization in Dementia instruments, respectively.

Conclusions: Most of the interventions evaluated were cost-effective. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, given the scarcity of the literature, and further economic evaluations of technology-based healthcare interventions for people with mild dementia or MCI care support and their caregivers are therefore needed. Additionally, a meta-analysis could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the data.

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
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
1327
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alzheimer''s Disease (JAD) is an international multidisciplinary journal to facilitate progress in understanding the etiology, pathogenesis, epidemiology, genetics, behavior, treatment and psychology of Alzheimer''s disease. The journal publishes research reports, reviews, short communications, hypotheses, ethics reviews, book reviews, and letters-to-the-editor. The journal is dedicated to providing an open forum for original research that will expedite our fundamental understanding of Alzheimer''s disease.
期刊最新文献
Economic evaluations of technology-based interventions used to provide care support for people with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment and their caregivers: A systematic review. Informing cognitively healthy research participants of modifiable dementia risk factors: Ethical implications. Mild behavioral impairment in people with mild cognitive impairment: Are the two conditions related? The partner paradox: How can we better understand shared cognitive decline in couples? Valuing the importance of sex differences in prodromal Alzheimer's disease based on structural magnetic resonance imaging.
×
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