A palliative care approach for adult non-cancer patients with life-limiting illnesses is cost-saving or cost-neutral: a systematic review of RCTs.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Katharina Janke, Yakubu Salifu, Siva Gavini, Nancy Preston, Amy Gadoud
{"title":"A palliative care approach for adult non-cancer patients with life-limiting illnesses is cost-saving or cost-neutral: a systematic review of RCTs.","authors":"Katharina Janke, Yakubu Salifu, Siva Gavini, Nancy Preston, Amy Gadoud","doi":"10.1186/s12904-024-01516-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients living with life-limiting illnesses other than cancer constitute the majority of patients in need of palliative care globally, yet most previous systematic reviews of the cost impact of palliative care have not exclusively focused on this population. Reviews that tangentially looked at non-cancer patients found inconclusive evidence. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for treatment efficacy, while total health care costs offer a comprehensive measure of resource use. In the sole review of RCTs for non-cancer patients, palliative care reduced hospitalisations and emergency department visits but its effect on total health care costs was not assessed. The aim of this study is to review RCTs to determine the difference in costs between a palliative care approach and usual care in adult non-cancer patients with a life-limiting illness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review using a narrative synthesis approach. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO prospectively (no. CRD42020191082). Eight databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL, EconLit, EMBASE, TRIP database, NHS Evidence, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to January 2023. Inclusion criteria were: English or German; randomised controlled trials (RCTs); adult non-cancer patients (> 18 years); palliative care provision; a comparator group of standard or usual care. Quality of studies was assessed using Drummond's checklist for assessing economic evaluations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven RCTs were included and examined the following diseases: neurological (3), heart failure (2), AIDS (1) and mixed (1). The majority (6/7) were home-based interventions. All studies were either cost-saving (3/7) or cost-neutral (4/7); and four had improved outcomes for patients or carers and three no change in outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a non-cancer population, this is the first systematic review of RCTs that has demonstrated a palliative care approach is cost-saving or at least cost-neutral. Cost savings are achieved without worsening outcomes for patients and carers. These findings lend support to calls to increase palliative care provision globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":48945,"journal":{"name":"BMC Palliative Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11299357/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01516-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients living with life-limiting illnesses other than cancer constitute the majority of patients in need of palliative care globally, yet most previous systematic reviews of the cost impact of palliative care have not exclusively focused on this population. Reviews that tangentially looked at non-cancer patients found inconclusive evidence. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for treatment efficacy, while total health care costs offer a comprehensive measure of resource use. In the sole review of RCTs for non-cancer patients, palliative care reduced hospitalisations and emergency department visits but its effect on total health care costs was not assessed. The aim of this study is to review RCTs to determine the difference in costs between a palliative care approach and usual care in adult non-cancer patients with a life-limiting illness.

Methods: A systematic review using a narrative synthesis approach. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO prospectively (no. CRD42020191082). Eight databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL, EconLit, EMBASE, TRIP database, NHS Evidence, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to January 2023. Inclusion criteria were: English or German; randomised controlled trials (RCTs); adult non-cancer patients (> 18 years); palliative care provision; a comparator group of standard or usual care. Quality of studies was assessed using Drummond's checklist for assessing economic evaluations.

Results: Seven RCTs were included and examined the following diseases: neurological (3), heart failure (2), AIDS (1) and mixed (1). The majority (6/7) were home-based interventions. All studies were either cost-saving (3/7) or cost-neutral (4/7); and four had improved outcomes for patients or carers and three no change in outcomes.

Conclusions: In a non-cancer population, this is the first systematic review of RCTs that has demonstrated a palliative care approach is cost-saving or at least cost-neutral. Cost savings are achieved without worsening outcomes for patients and carers. These findings lend support to calls to increase palliative care provision globally.

为患有局限性疾病的非癌症成人患者提供姑息关怀的方法是节约成本还是成本中性:对研究性临床试验的系统回顾。
背景:在全球需要姑息关怀的患者中,大多数是患有癌症以外的局限性疾病的患者,但之前大多数关于姑息关怀成本影响的系统性研究都没有专门针对这一人群。对非癌症患者进行切入性研究的综述发现了不确定的证据。随机对照试验(RCT)是衡量治疗效果的黄金标准,而医疗总成本则是衡量资源使用的综合指标。在唯一一项针对非癌症患者的 RCT 研究中,姑息关怀降低了住院率和急诊就诊率,但并未评估其对总医疗成本的影响。本研究的目的是对研究性临床试验进行回顾,以确定姑息关怀方法与常规护理方法对患有生命垂危疾病的成年非癌症患者的成本差异:方法:采用叙事综合法进行系统综述。该方案已在 PROSPERO 进行了前瞻性注册(编号:CRD42020191082)。检索了八个数据库:Medline、CINAHL、EconLit、EMBASE、TRIP 数据库、NHS Evidence、Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science。纳入标准为英语或德语;随机对照试验 (RCT);成年非癌症患者(18 岁以上);提供姑息治疗;标准或常规治疗的比较组。研究质量采用 Drummond 的经济评估核对表进行评估:结果:共纳入了七项 RCT 研究,涉及以下疾病:神经系统疾病(3 项)、心力衰竭(2 项)、艾滋病(1 项)和混合性疾病(1 项)。大多数研究(6/7)都是基于家庭的干预措施。所有研究要么节约了成本(3/7),要么不增加成本(4/7);4 项研究改善了患者或护理人员的治疗效果,3 项研究的治疗效果没有变化:在非癌症人群中,这是首次对研究性临床试验进行系统回顾,证明姑息关怀方法可以节约成本或至少不增加成本。在节约成本的同时,患者和照护者的治疗效果也不会恶化。这些研究结果支持了在全球范围内增加姑息关怀服务的呼吁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Palliative Care
BMC Palliative Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
9.70%
发文量
201
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Palliative Care is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the clinical, scientific, ethical and policy issues, local and international, regarding all aspects of hospice and palliative care for the dying and for those with profound suffering related to chronic illness.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信