The Economic Impact of Community-Based Allied Health on the Acute Sector: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Esther Jie Tian,1 Saravana Kumar,1 Priya Martin,2 Lewis A Ingram,3 Clarabelle T Pham4 1Innovation, IMPlementation and Clinical Translation (IIMPACT) in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; 2School of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia; 3Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; 4College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, AustraliaCorrespondence: Esther Jie Tian, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia, Tel +61883021300, Email jie.tian@mymail.unisa.edu.auAbstract: Community-based allied health (AH) services have previously demonstrated a potential positive impact on acute care utilization, with wide acceptance among consumers. However, little is known about their economic impact. This systematic review aimed to address this gap. The primary outcomes of interest included: (a) costs of at least one type of acute care utilization; and (b) cost-effectiveness regarding acute care. The secondary outcomes of interest included total healthcare and/or non-healthcare costs. An a priori protocol was registered with PROSPERO [CRD42023437013]. Inclusion criteria were: (a) stand-alone interventions led by practitioners/graduates from one or more target AH professions; (b) reported acute care utilization costs as a primary or secondary outcome; (c) full or partial economic evaluations; and (d) studies published in English from 2010 onward. Eligible studies were identified from relevant bibliographic databases and gray literature search (September and October 2023). Modified McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool for quantitative studies, McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and Consensus on Health Economic Criteria List were used to assess methodological quality. Narrative synthesis and cost-effectiveness planes were used for synthesizing and presenting the findings. Twelve studies, comprising eight cost analyses and four full economic evaluations, were included. Both single disciplinary (led by physiotherapists, dietitians, social workers, or exercise physiologists) and multidisciplinary (involved two to five AH professions) services were identified. Collectively, ten studies showed cost savings in acute care, while seven indicated varying degrees of cost-effectiveness and cost savings in total healthcare and non-healthcare, from pre-post and between-group comparisons. The findings demonstrated trends towards economic benefits of AH, highlighting their potential to alleviate the pressures on the acute sector and even the wider health system. However, the evidence is limited and of lower quality, emphasizing cautious interpretation. This review underscores the value of AH services and highlights key areas requiring action to strengthen the evidence base.Keywords: allied health occupations, primary health care, community health services, costs and cost analysis
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,035 | 0,134 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,012 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».