Gillian Eaglestone, Evdoxia Gkaintatzi, Harmony Jiang, Charlotte Stoner, Rosana Pacella, Paul McCrone
{"title":"轻度认知障碍和痴呆症非药物干预的成本效益:经济评估的系统综述和综述。","authors":"Gillian Eaglestone, Evdoxia Gkaintatzi, Harmony Jiang, Charlotte Stoner, Rosana Pacella, Paul McCrone","doi":"10.1007/s41669-023-00440-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dementia prevalence is increasing, with no cure at present. Drug therapies have potential side effects and risk of mortality. People with dementia are frequently offered non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life and relieve symptoms. Identifying which interventions are cost-effective is important due to finite resources in healthcare services.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aims were to review published economic evaluations of community and nursing home non-pharmacological interventions for people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia and assess the usefulness of these evaluations for decision making in health services, for use by policy and local and national decision makers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021252999) of economic evaluations of non-pharmacological interventions for dementia or mild cognitive impairment with a narrative approach to data synthesis.</p><p><strong>Exclusions: </strong>interventions for dementia prevention/early detection/end of life care. Databases searched: Academic Search Premier, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycArticles, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Business Source Premier and Regional Business News; timeframe 1 January 2011-11 May 2023. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 37 economic evaluations and four reviews worldwide across several distinct forms of care: physical activity, cognition, training, multicomponent, assistive technology and other (specialist dementia care, group living, home care vs care home). The intervention with the strongest evidence of cost-effectiveness was maintenance cognitive stimulation therapy. Case management, occupational therapy and dementia care management also showed good evidence of cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>More economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of specific dementia care interventions is needed, with consistency of methods and outcome measures. This could improve local and national decision makers' confidence to promote future cost-effective dementia interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10721583/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Effectiveness of Non-pharmacological Interventions for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations and a Review of Reviews.\",\"authors\":\"Gillian Eaglestone, Evdoxia Gkaintatzi, Harmony Jiang, Charlotte Stoner, Rosana Pacella, Paul McCrone\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41669-023-00440-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dementia prevalence is increasing, with no cure at present. Drug therapies have potential side effects and risk of mortality. People with dementia are frequently offered non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life and relieve symptoms. Identifying which interventions are cost-effective is important due to finite resources in healthcare services.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aims were to review published economic evaluations of community and nursing home non-pharmacological interventions for people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia and assess the usefulness of these evaluations for decision making in health services, for use by policy and local and national decision makers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021252999) of economic evaluations of non-pharmacological interventions for dementia or mild cognitive impairment with a narrative approach to data synthesis.</p><p><strong>Exclusions: </strong>interventions for dementia prevention/early detection/end of life care. Databases searched: Academic Search Premier, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycArticles, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Business Source Premier and Regional Business News; timeframe 1 January 2011-11 May 2023. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 37 economic evaluations and four reviews worldwide across several distinct forms of care: physical activity, cognition, training, multicomponent, assistive technology and other (specialist dementia care, group living, home care vs care home). The intervention with the strongest evidence of cost-effectiveness was maintenance cognitive stimulation therapy. Case management, occupational therapy and dementia care management also showed good evidence of cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>More economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of specific dementia care interventions is needed, with consistency of methods and outcome measures. This could improve local and national decision makers' confidence to promote future cost-effective dementia interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10721583/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00440-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00440-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:痴呆症的患病率正在上升,目前尚无治愈方法。药物治疗有潜在的副作用和死亡风险。痴呆症患者经常接受非药物干预,以提高生活质量和缓解症状。由于医疗服务资源有限,确定哪些干预措施具有成本效益非常重要。目的:目的是审查已发表的针对轻度认知障碍或痴呆患者的社区和疗养院非药物干预措施的经济评估,并评估这些评估对卫生服务决策的有用性,供政策制定者、地方和国家决策者使用。方法:我们对痴呆症或轻度认知障碍的非药物干预的经济评估进行了系统综述(PROSPERO CRD42021252999),采用叙述性数据合成方法。排除项目:痴呆症预防/早期发现/临终关怀干预措施。搜索的数据库:Academic Search Premier、MEDLINE、Web of Science、EMBASE、Google Scholar、护理和相关健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)、PsycInfo、心理学和行为科学收藏、PsycArticles、Cochrane系统评价数据库、Business Source Premier和区域商业新闻;时间框架2011年1月1日至2023年5月11日。报告质量使用综合健康经济评估报告标准(CHEERS)进行评估。结果:该审查包括37项经济评估和全球范围内的四项审查,涉及几种不同的护理形式:体育活动、认知、培训、多组分、辅助技术和其他(专业痴呆症护理、集体生活、家庭护理与护理院)。成本效益证据最强的干预措施是维持性认知刺激疗法。病例管理、职业治疗和痴呆症护理管理也显示出良好的成本效益证据。结论:需要更多的经济证据来证明特定痴呆症护理干预措施的成本效益,并保持方法和结果指标的一致性。这可以提高地方和国家决策者的信心,促进未来具有成本效益的痴呆症干预措施。
Cost-Effectiveness of Non-pharmacological Interventions for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations and a Review of Reviews.
Background: Dementia prevalence is increasing, with no cure at present. Drug therapies have potential side effects and risk of mortality. People with dementia are frequently offered non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life and relieve symptoms. Identifying which interventions are cost-effective is important due to finite resources in healthcare services.
Aims: The aims were to review published economic evaluations of community and nursing home non-pharmacological interventions for people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia and assess the usefulness of these evaluations for decision making in health services, for use by policy and local and national decision makers.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021252999) of economic evaluations of non-pharmacological interventions for dementia or mild cognitive impairment with a narrative approach to data synthesis.
Exclusions: interventions for dementia prevention/early detection/end of life care. Databases searched: Academic Search Premier, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycArticles, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Business Source Premier and Regional Business News; timeframe 1 January 2011-11 May 2023. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).
Results: The review included 37 economic evaluations and four reviews worldwide across several distinct forms of care: physical activity, cognition, training, multicomponent, assistive technology and other (specialist dementia care, group living, home care vs care home). The intervention with the strongest evidence of cost-effectiveness was maintenance cognitive stimulation therapy. Case management, occupational therapy and dementia care management also showed good evidence of cost-effectiveness.
Conclusion: More economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of specific dementia care interventions is needed, with consistency of methods and outcome measures. This could improve local and national decision makers' confidence to promote future cost-effective dementia interventions.
期刊介绍:
PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.