Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods

Bhattarai, Nawaraj, McMeekin, Peter, Price, Christopher and Vale, Luke (2016) Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods. BMJ Open, 6 (5). e011214. ISSN 2044-6055

[img]
Preview
Text
BMJ Open-2016-Bhattarai-.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial 4.0.

Download (1MB) | Preview
[img] Text
Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services.pdf - Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only

Download (614kB) | Request a copy
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011214

Abstract

Objective - To systematically review and appraise the quality of economic evaluations assessing centralisation of specialised healthcare services.

Methods - A systematic review to identify economic evaluations on centralisation of any specialised healthcare service. Full economic evaluations comparing costs and consequences of centralisation of any specialised healthcare service were eligible for inclusion. Methodological characteristics of included studies were appraised using checklists adapted from recommended guidelines.

Results - A total of 64 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were conducted in the UK. Most of the studies used volume of activity as a proxy measure of centralisation. The methods used to assess centralisation were heterogeneous. Studies differed in terms of study design used and aspect of centralisation they considered. There were major limitations in studies. Only 12 studies reported the study perspective. Charges which are not true representation of costs were used by 17 studies to assess cost outcomes. Only 10 reported the detailed breakdown of the cost components used in their analysis. Discounting was necessary in 14 studies but was reported only in 7 studies. Sensitivity analyses were included by less than one-third of the studies. The applicability of the identified studies to a setting other than the one they were conducted in is questionable, given variations in the organisation of services and healthcare costs. Centralisation as a concept has also been variably and narrowly defined as activity of specific services which may not reflect the wider aspects of centralisation.

Conclusions - Confounded and biased information coming from studies without standardised methods may mislead decision-makers towards making wrong decisions on centralisation. It is important to improve the methodology and reporting of economic evaluations in order to provide more robust and transferable evidence. Wider aspects of healthcare centralisation should be considered in the estimates of costs and health outcomes.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: L500 Social Work
N300 Finance
Department: Faculties > Health and Life Sciences > School of Health, Community and Education Studies > Nursing, Midwifery and Health
Depositing User: Becky Skoyles
Date Deposited: 17 Jun 2016 13:02
Last Modified: 14 Oct 2017 02:25
URI: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/27136

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics


Policies: NRL Policies | NRL University Deposit Policy | NRL Deposit Licence