MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214622734 · doi:10.1186/s12913-021-07221-6

Economic evaluation of advanced practice physiotherapy models of care: a systematic review with meta-analyses

2021· review· en· W3214622734 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Lafrance, Anthony Demont, Kednapa Thavorn, Julio Fernandes, Carlo Santaguida, François Desmeules

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRéseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-RéadaptationMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineEconomic evaluationChecklistSystematic reviewHealth administrationHealth informaticsPublic healthHealth careBiostatisticsMEDLINEHealth economicsRandomized controlled trialFamily medicinePhysical therapyNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The objective of this systematic review is to appraise evidence on the economic evaluations of advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) care compared to usual medical care. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted up to September 2021 in selected electronic bibliographical databases. Economic evaluation studies on an APP model of care were included. Economic data such as health care costs, patient costs, productivity losses were extracted. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Meta-analyses were performed and mean differences (MD) in costs per patient were calculated using random-effect inverse variance models. Certainty of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE Approach. RESULTS: Twelve studies (n = 14,649 participants) including four randomized controlled trials, seven analytical cohort studies and one economic modeling study were included. The clinical settings of APP models of care included primary, emergency and specialized secondary care such as orthopaedics, paediatrics and gynaecology. The majority of the included participants were adults with musculoskeletal disorders (n = 12,915). Based on low quality evidence, health system costs including salaries, diagnostic tests, medications, and follow-up visits were significantly lower with APP care than with usual medical care, at 2 to 12-month follow-up (MD: - 145.02 €/patient; 95%CI: - 251.89 to - 38.14; n = 7648). Based on low quality evidence, patient costs including travel and paid medication prescriptions, or treatments were significantly higher with APP care compared to usual medical care, at 2 to 6-month follow-up (MD: 22.18 €/patient; 95%CI: 0.40 to 43.96; n = 1485). Based on very low quality evidence, no significant differences in productivity losses per patient were reported between both types of care (MD: 450 €/patient; 95%CI: - 80 to 970; n = 819). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the economic evaluation of APP models of care. Low quality evidence suggests that APP care might result in lower health care costs, but higher patient costs compared to usual medical care. Costs differences may vary depending on various factors such as the cost methodology used and on the clinical setting. More evidence is needed to evaluate cost benefits of APP models of care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.549
GPT teacher head0.698
Teacher spread0.149 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207