长期护理机构卫生保健相关感染预防和控制干预措施的经济评估系统综述。

IF 2.7 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Health Economics Review Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1186/s13561-024-00582-8
Eric Nguemeleu Tchouaket, Fatima El-Mousawi, Stephanie Robins, Katya Kruglova, Catherine Séguin, Kelley Kilpatrick, Maripier Jubinville, Suzanne Leroux, Idrissa Beogo, Drissa Sia
{"title":"长期护理机构卫生保健相关感染预防和控制干预措施的经济评估系统综述。","authors":"Eric Nguemeleu Tchouaket, Fatima El-Mousawi, Stephanie Robins, Katya Kruglova, Catherine Séguin, Kelley Kilpatrick, Maripier Jubinville, Suzanne Leroux, Idrissa Beogo, Drissa Sia","doi":"10.1186/s13561-024-00582-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) are common in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and cause significant burden. Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures include the clinical best practices (CBP) of hand hygiene, hygiene and sanitation, screening, and basic and additional precautions. Few studies demonstrate their cost-effectiveness in LTCF, and those that do, largely focus on one CBP. An overarching synthesis of IPC economic analyses in this context is warranted. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of CBP applied in LTCF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We twice queried CINAHL, Cochrane, EconLit, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published in the last three decades of economic evaluations of CBP in LTCF. We included controlled and randomized clinical trials, cohort, longitudinal, follow-up, prospective, retrospective, cross-sectional, and simulations studies, as well as those based on mathematical or statistical modelling. Two reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of studies. We applied discounting rates of 3%, 5% and 8%, and presented all costs in 2022 Canadian dollars. The protocol of this review was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1210) and published in BMC Systematic Reviews.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We found 3,331 records and then 822 records; ten studies were retained. The economic analyses described were cost-minimization (n = 1), cost-benefit (n = 1), cost-savings (n = 2), cost-utility (n = 2) and cost-effectiveness which included cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses (n = 4). Four studies were high quality, three were moderate, and three were low quality. Inter-rater agreement for quality assessment was 91⋅7%. All studies (n = 10) demonstrated that CBP associated with IPC are clinically effective in LTCF and many (n = 6) demonstrated their cost effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Ongoing economic evaluation research of IPC remains essential to underpin healthcare policy choices guided by empirical evidence for LTCF residents and staff.</p>","PeriodicalId":46936,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Review","volume":"14 1","pages":"101"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11605862/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of economic evaluation of healthcare associated infection prevention and control interventions in long term care facilities.\",\"authors\":\"Eric Nguemeleu Tchouaket, Fatima El-Mousawi, Stephanie Robins, Katya Kruglova, Catherine Séguin, Kelley Kilpatrick, Maripier Jubinville, Suzanne Leroux, Idrissa Beogo, Drissa Sia\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13561-024-00582-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) are common in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and cause significant burden. Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures include the clinical best practices (CBP) of hand hygiene, hygiene and sanitation, screening, and basic and additional precautions. Few studies demonstrate their cost-effectiveness in LTCF, and those that do, largely focus on one CBP. An overarching synthesis of IPC economic analyses in this context is warranted. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of CBP applied in LTCF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We twice queried CINAHL, Cochrane, EconLit, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published in the last three decades of economic evaluations of CBP in LTCF. We included controlled and randomized clinical trials, cohort, longitudinal, follow-up, prospective, retrospective, cross-sectional, and simulations studies, as well as those based on mathematical or statistical modelling. Two reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of studies. We applied discounting rates of 3%, 5% and 8%, and presented all costs in 2022 Canadian dollars. The protocol of this review was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1210) and published in BMC Systematic Reviews.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We found 3,331 records and then 822 records; ten studies were retained. The economic analyses described were cost-minimization (n = 1), cost-benefit (n = 1), cost-savings (n = 2), cost-utility (n = 2) and cost-effectiveness which included cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses (n = 4). Four studies were high quality, three were moderate, and three were low quality. Inter-rater agreement for quality assessment was 91⋅7%. All studies (n = 10) demonstrated that CBP associated with IPC are clinically effective in LTCF and many (n = 6) demonstrated their cost effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Ongoing economic evaluation research of IPC remains essential to underpin healthcare policy choices guided by empirical evidence for LTCF residents and staff.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46936,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Economics Review\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11605862/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Economics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-024-00582-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-024-00582-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:医疗保健相关感染(HCAI)在长期护理机构(LTCF)中很常见,并造成重大负担。感染预防和控制措施包括手部卫生、个人卫生和环境卫生、筛查以及基本和额外预防措施的临床最佳做法。很少有研究证明它们在长期cf中的成本效益,而那些证明的研究也主要集中在一个CBP上。在此背景下,有必要对IPC经济分析进行总体综合。本文的目的是对CBP在长期融资中的应用进行系统的经济评价。方法:我们两次查询了CINAHL、Cochrane、EconLit、Embase、Medline、Web of Science和Scopus在过去三十年中发表的关于LTCF中CBP经济评估的研究。我们纳入了对照和随机临床试验、队列、纵向、随访、前瞻性、回顾性、横断面和模拟研究,以及基于数学或统计模型的研究。两名审稿人进行了研究选择、数据提取和研究质量评估。我们采用了3%、5%和8%的贴现率,并以2022年加元表示所有成本。本综述的方案已在Research Registry注册(reviewregistry1210),并发表在BMC系统评论(BMC Systematic Reviews)上。结果:从3331条记录到822条记录;保留了10项研究。所描述的经济分析是成本最小化(n = 1)、成本效益(n = 1)、成本节约(n = 2)、成本效用(n = 2)和成本效益,其中包括成本效用和成本效益分析(n = 4)。4项研究为高质量研究,3项为中等质量研究,3项为低质量研究。评价者对质量评价的一致性为91⋅7%。所有研究(n = 10)均表明CBP联合IPC在LTCF中临床有效,许多研究(n = 6)证明了其成本效益。解释:正在进行的IPC经济评估研究对于支持LTCF居民和工作人员的经验证据指导的医疗保健政策选择仍然至关重要。
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
A systematic review of economic evaluation of healthcare associated infection prevention and control interventions in long term care facilities.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) are common in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and cause significant burden. Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures include the clinical best practices (CBP) of hand hygiene, hygiene and sanitation, screening, and basic and additional precautions. Few studies demonstrate their cost-effectiveness in LTCF, and those that do, largely focus on one CBP. An overarching synthesis of IPC economic analyses in this context is warranted. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of CBP applied in LTCF.

Methods: We twice queried CINAHL, Cochrane, EconLit, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published in the last three decades of economic evaluations of CBP in LTCF. We included controlled and randomized clinical trials, cohort, longitudinal, follow-up, prospective, retrospective, cross-sectional, and simulations studies, as well as those based on mathematical or statistical modelling. Two reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of studies. We applied discounting rates of 3%, 5% and 8%, and presented all costs in 2022 Canadian dollars. The protocol of this review was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1210) and published in BMC Systematic Reviews.

Findings: We found 3,331 records and then 822 records; ten studies were retained. The economic analyses described were cost-minimization (n = 1), cost-benefit (n = 1), cost-savings (n = 2), cost-utility (n = 2) and cost-effectiveness which included cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses (n = 4). Four studies were high quality, three were moderate, and three were low quality. Inter-rater agreement for quality assessment was 91⋅7%. All studies (n = 10) demonstrated that CBP associated with IPC are clinically effective in LTCF and many (n = 6) demonstrated their cost effectiveness.

Interpretation: Ongoing economic evaluation research of IPC remains essential to underpin healthcare policy choices guided by empirical evidence for LTCF residents and staff.

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
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.20%
发文量
59
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Economics Review is an international high-quality journal covering all fields of Health Economics. A broad range of theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy with a health economic focus will be considered for publication. Its scope includes macro- and microeconomics of health care financing, health insurance and reimbursement as well as health economic evaluation, health services research and health policy analysis. Further research topics are the individual and institutional aspects of health care management and the growing importance of health care in developing countries.
期刊最新文献
Overuse of medical imaging and effects of payer-provider integration: quasi-experimental evidence from Finland. Matters arising: cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis of disease-modifying drugs of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Cost-effectiveness of the addition of sintilimab as a first-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a Chinese healthcare system perspective. The impact of multidimensional poverty on antenatal care service utilisation in Malawi. Business cycle sensitivity of Statutory Health Insurance: evidence from the Czech Republic.
×
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