癌症相关医疗保健经济学研究:综述文献。

Amy J Davidoff, Kaitlin Akif, Michael T Halpern
{"title":"癌症相关医疗保健经济学研究:综述文献。","authors":"Amy J Davidoff,&nbsp;Kaitlin Akif,&nbsp;Michael T Halpern","doi":"10.1093/jncimonographs/lgac011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We reviewed current literature reviews regarding economics of cancer-related health care to identify focus areas and gaps. We searched PubMed for systematic and other reviews with the Medical Subject Headings \"neoplasms\" and \"economics\" published between January 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020, identifying 164 reviews. Review characteristics were abstracted and described. The majority (70.7%) of reviews focused on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses. Few reviews addressed other types of cancer health economic studies. More than two-thirds of the reviews examined cancer treatments, followed by screening (15.9%) and survivorship or end-of-life (13.4%). The plurality of reviews (28.7%) cut across cancer site, followed by breast (20.7%), colorectal (11.6%), and gynecologic (8.5%) cancers. Specific topics addressed cancer screening modalities, novel therapies, pain management, or exercise interventions during survivorship. The results indicate that reviews do not regularly cover other phases of care or topics including financial hardship, policy, and measurement and methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":73988,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9255923/pdf/lgac011.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature.\",\"authors\":\"Amy J Davidoff,&nbsp;Kaitlin Akif,&nbsp;Michael T Halpern\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jncimonographs/lgac011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We reviewed current literature reviews regarding economics of cancer-related health care to identify focus areas and gaps. We searched PubMed for systematic and other reviews with the Medical Subject Headings \\\"neoplasms\\\" and \\\"economics\\\" published between January 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020, identifying 164 reviews. Review characteristics were abstracted and described. The majority (70.7%) of reviews focused on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses. Few reviews addressed other types of cancer health economic studies. More than two-thirds of the reviews examined cancer treatments, followed by screening (15.9%) and survivorship or end-of-life (13.4%). The plurality of reviews (28.7%) cut across cancer site, followed by breast (20.7%), colorectal (11.6%), and gynecologic (8.5%) cancers. Specific topics addressed cancer screening modalities, novel therapies, pain management, or exercise interventions during survivorship. The results indicate that reviews do not regularly cover other phases of care or topics including financial hardship, policy, and measurement and methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73988,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9255923/pdf/lgac011.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgac011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgac011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

我们回顾了目前关于癌症相关医疗保健经济学的文献综述,以确定重点领域和差距。我们在PubMed检索了2010年1月1日至2020年4月1日期间发表的以“肿瘤”和“经济学”为医学主题的系统和其他综述,确定了164篇综述。对综述特征进行了抽象和描述。大多数(70.7%)的评论集中在成本效益或成本效用分析上。很少有评论涉及其他类型的癌症健康经济研究。超过三分之二的综述检查了癌症治疗,其次是筛查(15.9%)和生存或生命终结(13.4%)。多数评论(28.7%)涉及癌症部位,其次是乳腺癌(20.7%)、结直肠癌(11.6%)和妇科癌症(8.5%)。具体主题涉及癌症筛查方式、新疗法、疼痛管理或生存期间的运动干预。结果表明,审查没有定期涵盖其他护理阶段或主题,包括经济困难、政策、测量和方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature.

We reviewed current literature reviews regarding economics of cancer-related health care to identify focus areas and gaps. We searched PubMed for systematic and other reviews with the Medical Subject Headings "neoplasms" and "economics" published between January 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020, identifying 164 reviews. Review characteristics were abstracted and described. The majority (70.7%) of reviews focused on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses. Few reviews addressed other types of cancer health economic studies. More than two-thirds of the reviews examined cancer treatments, followed by screening (15.9%) and survivorship or end-of-life (13.4%). The plurality of reviews (28.7%) cut across cancer site, followed by breast (20.7%), colorectal (11.6%), and gynecologic (8.5%) cancers. Specific topics addressed cancer screening modalities, novel therapies, pain management, or exercise interventions during survivorship. The results indicate that reviews do not regularly cover other phases of care or topics including financial hardship, policy, and measurement and methods.

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
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Imaging modalities for measuring body composition in patients with cancer: opportunities and challenges. Correction to: A health equity framework to support the next generation of cancer population simulation models. Data quality in a survey of registered medical cannabis users with cancer: nonresponse and measurement error. Item response theory analysis of benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer survivors. Overview of cancer patient perspectives on cannabis use during treatment.
×
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