Value of Nonpharmacological Interventions for People With an Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Acquired brain injury (ABI) has long-lasting effects, and patients and their families require continued care and support, often for the rest of their lives. For many individuals living with an ABI disorder, nonpharmacological rehabilitation treatment care has become increasingly important care component and relevant for informed healthcare decision making. Our study aimed to appraise economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for individuals living with an ABI. METHODS: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020187469), and a protocol article was subject to peer review. Searches were conducted across several databases for articles published from inception to 2021. Study quality was assessed according the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes criteria. RESULTS: Of the 3772 articles reviewed 41 publications met the inclusion criteria. There was a considerable heterogeneity in methodological approaches, target populations, study time frames, and perspectives and comparators used. Keeping these issues in mind, we find that 4 multidisciplinary interventions studies concluded that fast-track specialized services were cheaper and more cost-effective than usual care, with cost savings ranging from £253 to £6063. In 3 neuropsychological studies, findings suggested that meditated therapy was more effective and saved money than usual care. In 4 early supported discharge studies, interventions were dominant over usual care, with cost savings ranging from £142 to £1760. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness evidence of different nonpharmacological rehabilitation treatments is scant. More robust evidence is needed to determine the value of these and other interventions across the ABI care pathway.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".