Cost-effectiveness of home care services versus hospital care for pediatric patients worldwide: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the expansion of home care services (HCS) in several countries, there is still a need to systematically investigate the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of this type of service compared to hospital care in the world, particularly for the pediatric population. Hence, we aimed to systematically synthesize and critically evaluate the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of HCS versus in-hospital services worldwide. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. Ten databases will be searched: MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica database, cummulative index to nursing and allied health literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, SCOPUS, Science Direct, PsycINFO, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and Chinese national knowledge infrastructure with no restrictions on publication date or languages. A checklist for assessing the quality of reporting of economic evaluation studies will be applied. To assess the methodological quality of evidence from observational research on comparative effectiveness, the Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness Checklist v5.0 will be used. The heterogeneity among the studies will be assessed using the I2 statistic test. According to the results of this test, we will verify whether a meta-analysis is feasible. If feasibility is confirmed, a random-effect model analysis will be carried out. For data analysis, the calculation of the pooled effect estimates will consider a 95% CI and alpha will be set in 0.05 using the R statistical software, v.4.0.4. In addition, we will rate the certainty of evidence based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. All methodological steps of this review will be performed independently and paired by 2 reviewers and conducted and managed in the EPPI-Reviewer Software™. RESULTS: The results may have relevance for the basis of public health policies, regarding the forms of organization of HCS, especially in terms of complete economic evaluations through cost-effectiveness analysis in relation to hospital care. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge this will be the first systematic review and metanalysis to synthesize and critically evaluate the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of HCS versus in-hospital services worldwide. The review will adopt a rigorous approach, adhering to PRISMA Statement 2020, using a comprehensive and systematic search strategy in 10 databases, further the gray literature, pre-prints, with no time period or language restrictions.
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 | 0.079 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.003 |
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".