MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413020421 · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s539173

The Economic Impact of Community-Based Allied Health on the Acute Sector: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

2025· review· en· W4413020421 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Esther Tian, Saravana Kumar, Priya Martin, Lewis Ingram, Clarabelle T. Pham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsEconomic impact analysisEconomic communityEconomic evaluationMedicineData scienceComputer scienceEconomicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.405 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Multidisciplinary HealthcareSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207