A Comprehensive View of the Methods Used to Measure the Societal Impact of Healthcare Interventions: A Systematic Review.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Ahmed H Seddik, Jeroen Paulissen, Ramesh Marapin, Sebastiaan Fuhler, Sukhvinder Johal, Mats Rosenlund, Kyle Dunton, Maarten Postma, Roel Freriks
{"title":"A Comprehensive View of the Methods Used to Measure the Societal Impact of Healthcare Interventions: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Ahmed H Seddik, Jeroen Paulissen, Ramesh Marapin, Sebastiaan Fuhler, Sukhvinder Johal, Mats Rosenlund, Kyle Dunton, Maarten Postma, Roel Freriks","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study summarizes the concepts that have been used to date to demonstrate societal impact of healthcare interventions and establish an analytical framework to comprehensively organize and describe the different elements of societal impact.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review following Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase, gray literature from ISPOR and Value Balancing Alliance websites, and the reference lists of the identified systematic reviews. Eligible studies assessed the societal impact and described a specific approach. For each included study, we extracted relevant characteristics, such as disease area, methodology, and societal impact metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a pool of 12 525 studies, 159 were included. Studies broadly examined the societal impact of an intervention at the patients, caregivers, healthcare organizations, and the societal level. Within those categories, we identified a total of 42 different concepts of societal value. We presented a frequency count of those concepts in a hierarchical framework and analyzed the studies qualitatively. We also assessed the literature against the ISPOR value flower.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings reveal recurrent themes and highlight the demand for methodological harmonization. While addressing the limitations of the studied literature from a decision-making perspective, we propose a consensus-driven path forward. Through our research, we emphasize the importance of refining the existing methods, the need for developing a standardized reporting format for future studies, and the importance of developing concise definitions for subjective concepts for societal impact of healthcare interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.009","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study summarizes the concepts that have been used to date to demonstrate societal impact of healthcare interventions and establish an analytical framework to comprehensively organize and describe the different elements of societal impact.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review following Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase, gray literature from ISPOR and Value Balancing Alliance websites, and the reference lists of the identified systematic reviews. Eligible studies assessed the societal impact and described a specific approach. For each included study, we extracted relevant characteristics, such as disease area, methodology, and societal impact metrics.

Results: From a pool of 12 525 studies, 159 were included. Studies broadly examined the societal impact of an intervention at the patients, caregivers, healthcare organizations, and the societal level. Within those categories, we identified a total of 42 different concepts of societal value. We presented a frequency count of those concepts in a hierarchical framework and analyzed the studies qualitatively. We also assessed the literature against the ISPOR value flower.

Conclusions: Our findings reveal recurrent themes and highlight the demand for methodological harmonization. While addressing the limitations of the studied literature from a decision-making perspective, we propose a consensus-driven path forward. Through our research, we emphasize the importance of refining the existing methods, the need for developing a standardized reporting format for future studies, and the importance of developing concise definitions for subjective concepts for societal impact of healthcare interventions.

一个全面的观点,用于测量医疗保健干预的社会影响的方法:一个系统的回顾。
目的:本研究总结了迄今为止用于证明医疗保健干预的社会影响的概念,并建立了一个分析框架,以全面组织和描述社会影响的不同要素。方法:我们按照Cochrane和PRISMA指南进行了系统评价。我们检索MEDLINE和Embase, ISPOR和Value Balancing Alliance网站的灰色文献,以及已确定的系统评价的参考文献列表。合格的研究评估了社会影响,并描述了具体的方法。对于每一项纳入的研究,我们提取了相关特征,如疾病区域、方法和社会影响指标。结果:在12525项研究中,159项被纳入。研究广泛地考察了干预在患者、护理人员、医疗机构和社会层面的社会影响。在这些类别中,我们确定了总共42种不同的社会价值概念。我们在一个层次框架中提出了这些概念的频率计数,并对研究进行了定性分析。我们还对ISPOR值花的文献进行了评估。结论:我们的研究结果揭示了反复出现的主题,并强调了对方法协调的需求。在从决策角度解决所研究文献的局限性的同时,我们提出了一条共识驱动的前进道路。通过我们的研究,我们强调了改进现有方法的重要性,以及为未来的研究开发标准化报告格式的必要性,以及为医疗保健干预的社会影响的主观概念制定简明定义的重要性。
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
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
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