Evaluation of reporting in time-driven activity-based costing studies on cardiovascular diseases: a scoping review.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Nayê Balzan Schneider, Erica Caetano Roos, Miriam Allein Zago Marcolino, Fabio Caldana, Filipe Rodrigues Vargas do Nascimento, Sérgio Renato da Rosa Decker, Ana Paula Beck da Silva Etges, Carisi Anne Polanczyk
{"title":"Evaluation of reporting in time-driven activity-based costing studies on cardiovascular diseases: a scoping review.","authors":"Nayê Balzan Schneider, Erica Caetano Roos, Miriam Allein Zago Marcolino, Fabio Caldana, Filipe Rodrigues Vargas do Nascimento, Sérgio Renato da Rosa Decker, Ana Paula Beck da Silva Etges, Carisi Anne Polanczyk","doi":"10.57264/cer-2024-0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> This scoping review evaluates the application of the time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) methodology in cardiovascular disease (CVD) studies. <b>Materials & methods:</b> The evaluation was conducted using the 32-item TDABC Healthcare Consortium Consensus Statement Checklist. A systematic search was performed in Medline, Embase and Scopus in September 2023, including only full-text, peer-reviewed studies reporting the application of TDABC in CVD research. <b>Results:</b> Twenty studies were included in the review. The positive response rate for individual studies ranged from 31 to 81%. The most frequently addressed checklist item was the clear definition of study objectives, while presenting costs per patient included in the analysis was the least reported item. Although 70% of the studies achieved a positive response rate above 50%, adherence to the TDABC checklist remains inconsistent. <b>Conclusion:</b> There is significant room for improvement in the reporting of TDABC methodology in CVD studies. Providing a more comprehensive and standardized description of the methodology would enhance the utility, reproducibility and accuracy of the information generated, supporting the development of evidence-based health policies and improving accountability in healthcare cost assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e240013"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11963363/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0013","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: This scoping review evaluates the application of the time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) methodology in cardiovascular disease (CVD) studies. Materials & methods: The evaluation was conducted using the 32-item TDABC Healthcare Consortium Consensus Statement Checklist. A systematic search was performed in Medline, Embase and Scopus in September 2023, including only full-text, peer-reviewed studies reporting the application of TDABC in CVD research. Results: Twenty studies were included in the review. The positive response rate for individual studies ranged from 31 to 81%. The most frequently addressed checklist item was the clear definition of study objectives, while presenting costs per patient included in the analysis was the least reported item. Although 70% of the studies achieved a positive response rate above 50%, adherence to the TDABC checklist remains inconsistent. Conclusion: There is significant room for improvement in the reporting of TDABC methodology in CVD studies. Providing a more comprehensive and standardized description of the methodology would enhance the utility, reproducibility and accuracy of the information generated, supporting the development of evidence-based health policies and improving accountability in healthcare cost assessments.

对心血管疾病时间驱动的作业成本核算研究报告的评价:范围审查。
目的:本综述评估了时间驱动的作业成本法(TDABC)在心血管疾病(CVD)研究中的应用。材料与方法:采用32项TDABC医疗保健联盟共识声明清单进行评估。我们于2023年9月在Medline, Embase和Scopus中进行了系统检索,仅包括报道TDABC在CVD研究中的应用的全文同行评审研究。结果:本综述纳入了20项研究。个别研究的阳性反应率从31%到81%不等。最常提到的检查表项目是研究目标的明确定义,而分析中包含的每位患者的费用是报告最少的项目。尽管70%的研究达到了50%以上的积极反应率,但TDABC检查表的依从性仍然不一致。结论:TDABC方法在心血管疾病研究中的报告有很大的改进空间。提供更全面和标准化的方法说明将提高所生成信息的实用性、可重复性和准确性,支持制定循证保健政策,并改善保健成本评估的问责制。
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
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
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