Tijs Van Iseghem, Laura Vroonen, Emilie Op de Beeck, Annick Meertens, Caroline Masquillier, Edwin Wouters, Nick Verhaeghe
{"title":"初级卫生保健中社区卫生工作者的成本效益:一项系统审查。","authors":"Tijs Van Iseghem, Laura Vroonen, Emilie Op de Beeck, Annick Meertens, Caroline Masquillier, Edwin Wouters, Nick Verhaeghe","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Global interest in community health worker (CHW) programs in primary health care (PHC) is rising due to their potential to advance universal health coverage and other global health goals. This systematic review examines the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CHW interventions worldwide, with a focus on vulnerable populations in PHC settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, SCOPUS and EconLit databases. The search was last updated on May 13, 2025. Two reviewers independently selected articles, rated their quality and extracted relevant data. Included articles had to be full economic evaluations comparing CHW interventions to usual care without CHWs, focussing on vulnerable populations in PHC. A standardized data extraction template was used and the reporting quality was assessed using the CHEERS checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty articles were included, originating from 25 countries. All but one of the economic evaluations were disease-specific, focusing mainly on maternal, newborn and child health, type 2 diabetes mellitus, tuberculosis, cardiovascular disease, mental health, and HIV. Most articles (n = 35, 70%) indicated that CHW interventions were (potentially) cost-effective. Fourteen out of these 35 articles can substantiate their findings with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review found that CHWs can be cost-effective across multiple health domains, both in LMICs and HICs. The lack of PSA, together with heterogeneity in contexts, interventions and methods used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the CHW interventions makes it difficult to draw general conclusions about the value-for-money of CHWs in PHC.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The cost-effectiveness of community health workers in primary health care: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Tijs Van Iseghem, Laura Vroonen, Emilie Op de Beeck, Annick Meertens, Caroline Masquillier, Edwin Wouters, Nick Verhaeghe\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Global interest in community health worker (CHW) programs in primary health care (PHC) is rising due to their potential to advance universal health coverage and other global health goals. This systematic review examines the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CHW interventions worldwide, with a focus on vulnerable populations in PHC settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, SCOPUS and EconLit databases. The search was last updated on May 13, 2025. Two reviewers independently selected articles, rated their quality and extracted relevant data. Included articles had to be full economic evaluations comparing CHW interventions to usual care without CHWs, focussing on vulnerable populations in PHC. A standardized data extraction template was used and the reporting quality was assessed using the CHEERS checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty articles were included, originating from 25 countries. All but one of the economic evaluations were disease-specific, focusing mainly on maternal, newborn and child health, type 2 diabetes mellitus, tuberculosis, cardiovascular disease, mental health, and HIV. Most articles (n = 35, 70%) indicated that CHW interventions were (potentially) cost-effective. Fourteen out of these 35 articles can substantiate their findings with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review found that CHWs can be cost-effective across multiple health domains, both in LMICs and HICs. The lack of PSA, together with heterogeneity in contexts, interventions and methods used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the CHW interventions makes it difficult to draw general conclusions about the value-for-money of CHWs in PHC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-20\",\"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.2025.09.004\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.004","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
摘要
背景:全球对初级卫生保健(PHC)中的社区卫生工作者(CHW)计划的兴趣正在上升,因为它们有可能促进全民健康覆盖和其他全球卫生目标。本系统综述审查了世界范围内卫生保健干预措施成本效益的证据,重点关注初级保健环境中的弱势人群。方法:采用PubMed、Embase、Web of Science Core Collection、SCOPUS和EconLit数据库进行系统综述。最后一次搜索更新是在2025年5月13日。两位审稿人独立选择文章,对其质量进行评分并提取相关数据。纳入的文章必须是全面的经济评估,将卫生保健干预措施与没有卫生保健的常规护理进行比较,重点关注初级保健中的弱势群体。使用标准化的数据提取模板,并使用CHEERS检查表评估报告质量。结果:纳入文献50篇,来自25个国家。除了一项以外,所有经济评价都是针对具体疾病的,主要侧重于孕产妇、新生儿和儿童健康、2型糖尿病、结核病、心血管疾病、精神健康和艾滋病毒。大多数文章(n = 35, 70%)表明CHW干预(潜在)具有成本效益。这35篇文章中有14篇可以用概率敏感性分析(PSA)证实他们的发现。结论:本综述发现,在中低收入国家和高收入国家,卫生保健中心在多个卫生领域具有成本效益。由于缺乏PSA,再加上环境、干预措施和评估卫生保健干预措施成本效益的方法的异质性,很难得出关于初级保健卫生保健的物有所值的一般性结论。
The cost-effectiveness of community health workers in primary health care: a systematic review.
Background: Global interest in community health worker (CHW) programs in primary health care (PHC) is rising due to their potential to advance universal health coverage and other global health goals. This systematic review examines the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CHW interventions worldwide, with a focus on vulnerable populations in PHC settings.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, SCOPUS and EconLit databases. The search was last updated on May 13, 2025. Two reviewers independently selected articles, rated their quality and extracted relevant data. Included articles had to be full economic evaluations comparing CHW interventions to usual care without CHWs, focussing on vulnerable populations in PHC. A standardized data extraction template was used and the reporting quality was assessed using the CHEERS checklist.
Results: Fifty articles were included, originating from 25 countries. All but one of the economic evaluations were disease-specific, focusing mainly on maternal, newborn and child health, type 2 diabetes mellitus, tuberculosis, cardiovascular disease, mental health, and HIV. Most articles (n = 35, 70%) indicated that CHW interventions were (potentially) cost-effective. Fourteen out of these 35 articles can substantiate their findings with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).
Conclusion: This review found that CHWs can be cost-effective across multiple health domains, both in LMICs and HICs. The lack of PSA, together with heterogeneity in contexts, interventions and methods used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the CHW interventions makes it difficult to draw general conclusions about the value-for-money of CHWs in PHC.
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.