Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2021
Economic evaluation of wheelchairs interventions: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ferretti Eliana C, Suzumura Erica, Rozman Luciana M, Cooper Rory A, de Soárez Patrícia C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of this systematic review was to identify and synthesise the best available evidence on effectiveness, resource use and costs involved in wheelchair interventions of adults with mobility limitations.
METHODOLOGY: This systematic review was undertaken in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Guidelines. The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic reviews. The following PICOS eligibility criteria were considered: (P) Population was individuals with mobility limitations that live in their community (e.g., non-institutionalized), with aged 18 or older; (I) Intervention was mobility assistive technologies (MAT), such as manual and powered wheelchairs; (C) Comparators (Not Applied); (O) Outcome, the primary outcome of interest, was established as the cost-effectiveness of wheelchair interventions. Direct and indirect costs per unit of effect were expressed in terms of clinical outcome units, quality-adjusted life years gained, utility scores, quality of life measures and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to inform the economic outcomes. (S) Study design was considered as a health economic evaluation (i.e., including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost benefit analysis as well as partial economic evaluations). The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - CHEERS, checklist was used for summarising and interpreting the results of economic evaluations.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, two were identified as full health economic evaluations and 14 were considered partial health economic evaluations.
CONCLUSION: Only two full health economic analyses of wheelchair interventions have been conducted and both focussed on powered wheelchair provision. There are important gaps in current knowledge regarding wheelchair health economic methods and available outcome measures, which there is a great need for further research.Implication for RehabilitationSystematic reviews of health economic evaluation studies are useful for synthesising economic evidence about health interventions and provide insight in new research development.Organisations involved in the provision of wheelchairs should apply cost-effectiveness outcome measures to help raise the standard of provision, to support evidence-based practice, and to improve resource utilisation.
METHODOLOGY: This systematic review was undertaken in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Guidelines. The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic reviews. The following PICOS eligibility criteria were considered: (P) Population was individuals with mobility limitations that live in their community (e.g., non-institutionalized), with aged 18 or older; (I) Intervention was mobility assistive technologies (MAT), such as manual and powered wheelchairs; (C) Comparators (Not Applied); (O) Outcome, the primary outcome of interest, was established as the cost-effectiveness of wheelchair interventions. Direct and indirect costs per unit of effect were expressed in terms of clinical outcome units, quality-adjusted life years gained, utility scores, quality of life measures and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to inform the economic outcomes. (S) Study design was considered as a health economic evaluation (i.e., including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost benefit analysis as well as partial economic evaluations). The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - CHEERS, checklist was used for summarising and interpreting the results of economic evaluations.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, two were identified as full health economic evaluations and 14 were considered partial health economic evaluations.
CONCLUSION: Only two full health economic analyses of wheelchair interventions have been conducted and both focussed on powered wheelchair provision. There are important gaps in current knowledge regarding wheelchair health economic methods and available outcome measures, which there is a great need for further research.Implication for RehabilitationSystematic reviews of health economic evaluation studies are useful for synthesising economic evidence about health interventions and provide insight in new research development.Organisations involved in the provision of wheelchairs should apply cost-effectiveness outcome measures to help raise the standard of provision, to support evidence-based practice, and to improve resource utilisation.