衡量影响:医疗保健影响评估的范围审查。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
L R Correia, J C Martins, E T Rother, P C de Soárez
{"title":"衡量影响:医疗保健影响评估的范围审查。","authors":"L R Correia, J C Martins, E T Rother, P C de Soárez","doi":"10.1186/s12961-025-01324-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the increasing use of the term \"impact evaluation\" in healthcare and the absence of an exhaustive review on this general theme, this research aims to map available evidence and methods associated with impact evaluations in healthcare by conducting a scoping review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This exhaustive review included peer-reviewed studies of healthcare interventions with no restrictions on language or time of publication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 324 studies met the inclusion criteria from 4372 single registries retrieved from Medline, Embase, Scopus, WoS and Econlit in August 2024, with no time restriction. Only ex-post studies were identified; as expected from guidelines, most studies used counterfactuals (58%) and only 7% did not use any comparison. Furthermore, natural experiments or quasi-experiments were the most applied designs (37%), followed by observational (26%) and experimental (17%) designs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Impact evaluations of healthcare interventions seem to be predominantly associated with methods of strong comparison (counterfactuals) designs as seen in guidelines; however, there are exceptions.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"113"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12424203/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring impacts: a scoping review of healthcare impact evaluations.\",\"authors\":\"L R Correia, J C Martins, E T Rother, P C de Soárez\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-025-01324-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the increasing use of the term \\\"impact evaluation\\\" in healthcare and the absence of an exhaustive review on this general theme, this research aims to map available evidence and methods associated with impact evaluations in healthcare by conducting a scoping review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This exhaustive review included peer-reviewed studies of healthcare interventions with no restrictions on language or time of publication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 324 studies met the inclusion criteria from 4372 single registries retrieved from Medline, Embase, Scopus, WoS and Econlit in August 2024, with no time restriction. Only ex-post studies were identified; as expected from guidelines, most studies used counterfactuals (58%) and only 7% did not use any comparison. Furthermore, natural experiments or quasi-experiments were the most applied designs (37%), followed by observational (26%) and experimental (17%) designs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Impact evaluations of healthcare interventions seem to be predominantly associated with methods of strong comparison (counterfactuals) designs as seen in guidelines; however, there are exceptions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12424203/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01324-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01324-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:随着“影响评估”一词在医疗保健领域的使用越来越多,并且缺乏对这一总体主题的详尽审查,本研究旨在通过进行范围审查来绘制与医疗保健领域影响评估相关的现有证据和方法。方法:这项详尽的综述包括同行评议的医疗保健干预研究,没有语言或出版时间的限制。结果:2024年8月,在Medline、Embase、Scopus、WoS和Econlit检索的4372个单一注册库中,无时间限制,共有324项研究符合纳入标准。只确定了事后研究;正如指南所预期的那样,大多数研究使用了反事实(58%),只有7%的研究没有使用任何比较。此外,自然实验或准实验是应用最多的设计(37%),其次是观察设计(26%)和实验设计(17%)。结论:卫生保健干预措施的影响评估似乎主要与指南中所见的强比较(反事实)设计方法相关;然而,也有例外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Measuring impacts: a scoping review of healthcare impact evaluations.

Measuring impacts: a scoping review of healthcare impact evaluations.

Measuring impacts: a scoping review of healthcare impact evaluations.

Measuring impacts: a scoping review of healthcare impact evaluations.

Background: With the increasing use of the term "impact evaluation" in healthcare and the absence of an exhaustive review on this general theme, this research aims to map available evidence and methods associated with impact evaluations in healthcare by conducting a scoping review.

Methods: This exhaustive review included peer-reviewed studies of healthcare interventions with no restrictions on language or time of publication.

Results: In total, 324 studies met the inclusion criteria from 4372 single registries retrieved from Medline, Embase, Scopus, WoS and Econlit in August 2024, with no time restriction. Only ex-post studies were identified; as expected from guidelines, most studies used counterfactuals (58%) and only 7% did not use any comparison. Furthermore, natural experiments or quasi-experiments were the most applied designs (37%), followed by observational (26%) and experimental (17%) designs.

Conclusions: Impact evaluations of healthcare interventions seem to be predominantly associated with methods of strong comparison (counterfactuals) designs as seen in guidelines; however, there are exceptions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
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