Economic evaluations of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions: a systematic review.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Adissa Bankolé, Blanchard Conombo, France Légaré, Maude Laberge
{"title":"Economic evaluations of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions: a systematic review.","authors":"Adissa Bankolé, Blanchard Conombo, France Légaré, Maude Laberge","doi":"10.1186/s12913-025-13024-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Scaling seeks to extend the benefits of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to larger populations, and often with the hope of achieving economies of scale. However, little is known about scaling costs. Our goal was to find scaling studies that focused on economic evaluations of scaling, their characteristics and the methods they applied.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA reporting guidelines. We included all studies that conducted a full or partial economic evaluation of scaling an EBI in healthcare, applicable to any individual or organization in any country and setting. We included all study designs and imposed no restrictions on language. We conducted searches in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception until November 12, 2024, including grey literature. Pairs of independent reviewers identified eligible studies and extracted data on study characteristics, scaling strategies, characteristics of economic evaluations and methods used. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the British Medical Journal Checklist. Results were summarized using narrative synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 8,936 unique citations, thirteen studies meet our inclusion criteria: ten cost-effectiveness and three cost-analysis studies. Studies were performed in lower- or middle-income countries (LMIC) as well as in high-income countries and covered EBIs for infectious diseases, mental health, and colorectal cancer. All reported direct costs (e.g., health professional training costs) and indirect costs (e.g., capital costs) associated with scaling strategies. Four studies were of high quality, eight of moderate quality and one of poor quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With the increased interest in scaling EBIs in health, there is an urgent need for more evaluations of costs associated with scaling, both in LMIC and in high-income countries, and a need for rigour in how these evaluations are performed.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"836"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12210681/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-13024-w","RegionNum":3,"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: Scaling seeks to extend the benefits of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to larger populations, and often with the hope of achieving economies of scale. However, little is known about scaling costs. Our goal was to find scaling studies that focused on economic evaluations of scaling, their characteristics and the methods they applied.

Methods: We performed a systematic review informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA reporting guidelines. We included all studies that conducted a full or partial economic evaluation of scaling an EBI in healthcare, applicable to any individual or organization in any country and setting. We included all study designs and imposed no restrictions on language. We conducted searches in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception until November 12, 2024, including grey literature. Pairs of independent reviewers identified eligible studies and extracted data on study characteristics, scaling strategies, characteristics of economic evaluations and methods used. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the British Medical Journal Checklist. Results were summarized using narrative synthesis.

Results: Of 8,936 unique citations, thirteen studies meet our inclusion criteria: ten cost-effectiveness and three cost-analysis studies. Studies were performed in lower- or middle-income countries (LMIC) as well as in high-income countries and covered EBIs for infectious diseases, mental health, and colorectal cancer. All reported direct costs (e.g., health professional training costs) and indirect costs (e.g., capital costs) associated with scaling strategies. Four studies were of high quality, eight of moderate quality and one of poor quality.

Conclusion: With the increased interest in scaling EBIs in health, there is an urgent need for more evaluations of costs associated with scaling, both in LMIC and in high-income countries, and a need for rigour in how these evaluations are performed.

扩大循证卫生干预战略的经济评价:系统回顾。
背景:规模化旨在将循证干预措施(ebi)的益处扩展到更大的人群,通常希望实现规模经济。然而,人们对扩展成本知之甚少。我们的目标是找到缩放研究,重点是缩放的经济评估,它们的特征和它们应用的方法。方法:我们根据乔安娜布里格斯研究所和PRISMA报告指南进行了系统回顾。我们纳入了适用于任何国家和环境中的任何个人或组织的所有对医疗保健中扩展EBI进行全面或部分经济评估的研究。我们纳入了所有的研究设计,并没有对语言施加限制。我们检索了Medline、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane Library Database、PEDE、EconLIT、INHATA从成立到2024年11月12日的文献,包括灰色文献。一对对独立的审稿人确定了符合条件的研究,并提取了有关研究特征、量表策略、经济评估特征和使用方法的数据。纳入研究的方法学质量采用《英国医学杂志检查表》进行评估。用叙事综合法对结果进行总结。结果:在8,936个独特引用中,13个研究符合我们的纳入标准:10个成本效益研究和3个成本分析研究。研究在低收入或中等收入国家(LMIC)以及高收入国家进行,并涵盖了感染性疾病、精神健康和结直肠癌的ebi。所有报告的与规模扩大战略相关的直接成本(如卫生专业培训成本)和间接成本(如资本成本)。4项研究为高质量研究,8项为中等质量研究,1项为低质量研究。结论:随着人们对在卫生领域扩大ebi的兴趣日益浓厚,迫切需要对中低收入国家和高收入国家扩大ebi的相关成本进行更多的评估,并且需要严格规定如何进行这些评估。
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 Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信