老年人开处方的经济评价:一项系统综述。

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Ying Zhang, Zhaoyan Chen, Xi Chen, Fangyuan Tian
{"title":"老年人开处方的经济评价:一项系统综述。","authors":"Ying Zhang, Zhaoyan Chen, Xi Chen, Fangyuan Tian","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to synthesize economic evaluation evidence on deprescribing in older adults across settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted across the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception through June 18, 2025, to identify studies evaluating the economic impact of deprescribing in older adults. Two independent reviewers selected relevant articles, extracted data, and assessed study quality according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>57 studies were included, covering multiple settings such as communities, outpatient clinics, hospitals, geriatric care facilities, nursing homes, primary care, home, and online platforms. Medication review was the most frequently employed deprescribing strategy, supplemented by education, pharmaceutical care, rounds, and pharmacist independent prescriber. Multiple deprescribing tools were used, including general and custom criteria. Physicians and pharmacists were the primary implementers of deprescribing interventions. Economic evaluation methods included cost, cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-consequence, and return-on-investment analysis, with various outcome indicators. Quality assessment revealed that the quality of the studies was good or very good, except for three studies that were of poor quality. Most studies (44 of 57) indicated that deprescribing led to cost-saving, medication cost reduction, or improved cost-effectiveness/benefit/utility.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The majority of studies support the economic benefit of deprescribing, although some report negative or inconclusive results. However, this review has some limitations in database retrieval, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment, potentially affecting the findings. The contradiction in economic results stems from a variety of factors, which requires further optimization studies in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic evaluation of deprescribing in older adults: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Ying Zhang, Zhaoyan Chen, Xi Chen, Fangyuan Tian\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2025.10.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to synthesize economic evaluation evidence on deprescribing in older adults across settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted across the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception through June 18, 2025, to identify studies evaluating the economic impact of deprescribing in older adults. Two independent reviewers selected relevant articles, extracted data, and assessed study quality according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>57 studies were included, covering multiple settings such as communities, outpatient clinics, hospitals, geriatric care facilities, nursing homes, primary care, home, and online platforms. Medication review was the most frequently employed deprescribing strategy, supplemented by education, pharmaceutical care, rounds, and pharmacist independent prescriber. Multiple deprescribing tools were used, including general and custom criteria. Physicians and pharmacists were the primary implementers of deprescribing interventions. Economic evaluation methods included cost, cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-consequence, and return-on-investment analysis, with various outcome indicators. Quality assessment revealed that the quality of the studies was good or very good, except for three studies that were of poor quality. Most studies (44 of 57) indicated that deprescribing led to cost-saving, medication cost reduction, or improved cost-effectiveness/benefit/utility.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The majority of studies support the economic benefit of deprescribing, although some report negative or inconclusive results. However, this review has some limitations in database retrieval, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment, potentially affecting the findings. The contradiction in economic results stems from a variety of factors, which requires further optimization studies in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-18\",\"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.2025.10.001\",\"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.2025.10.001","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

目的:本研究的目的是综合不同环境下老年人处方的经济评价证据。方法:从2025年6月18日开始,对PubMed、Embase和Web of Science数据库进行了全面的搜索,以确定评估老年人开处方的经济影响的研究。两名独立审稿人选择相关文章,提取数据,并根据综合卫生经济评估报告标准2022评估研究质量。结果:纳入了57项研究,涵盖了多种环境,如社区、门诊诊所、医院、老年护理机构、养老院、初级保健、家庭和在线平台。药物回顾是最常用的处方解除策略,辅以教育、药学服务、查房和药剂师独立开处方者。使用了多种描述工具,包括通用标准和自定义标准。医生和药剂师是处方干预的主要实施者。经济评价方法包括成本分析、成本-效用分析、成本-效益分析、成本-效果分析、成本-后果分析和投资回报分析,并采用各种结果指标。质量评估显示,除了三个质量较差的研究外,研究的质量为好或非常好。大多数研究(57项中的44项)表明,开处方可以节省成本,降低药物成本,或提高成本效益/效益/效用。结论:大多数研究支持处方化的经济效益,尽管有些报告了负面或不确定的结果。然而,本综述在数据库检索、数据抽象和偏倚风险评估方面存在一定的局限性,可能影响研究结果。经济效果的矛盾源于多种因素,需要在未来进一步优化研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Economic evaluation of deprescribing in older adults: A systematic review.

Objective: This study aims to synthesize economic evaluation evidence on deprescribing in older adults across settings.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception through June 18, 2025, to identify studies evaluating the economic impact of deprescribing in older adults. Two independent reviewers selected relevant articles, extracted data, and assessed study quality according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022.

Results: 57 studies were included, covering multiple settings such as communities, outpatient clinics, hospitals, geriatric care facilities, nursing homes, primary care, home, and online platforms. Medication review was the most frequently employed deprescribing strategy, supplemented by education, pharmaceutical care, rounds, and pharmacist independent prescriber. Multiple deprescribing tools were used, including general and custom criteria. Physicians and pharmacists were the primary implementers of deprescribing interventions. Economic evaluation methods included cost, cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-consequence, and return-on-investment analysis, with various outcome indicators. Quality assessment revealed that the quality of the studies was good or very good, except for three studies that were of poor quality. Most studies (44 of 57) indicated that deprescribing led to cost-saving, medication cost reduction, or improved cost-effectiveness/benefit/utility.

Conclusion: The majority of studies support the economic benefit of deprescribing, although some report negative or inconclusive results. However, this review has some limitations in database retrieval, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment, potentially affecting the findings. The contradiction in economic results stems from a variety of factors, which requires further optimization studies in the future.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信