Undetermined impact of patient decision support interventions on healthcare costs and savings: Systematic review

Walsh, Thom, Barr, Paul James, Thompson, Rachel, Ozanne, Elissa, O'Neill, Ciaran and Elwyn, Glyn (2014) Undetermined impact of patient decision support interventions on healthcare costs and savings: Systematic review. BMJ, 348 . doi:10.1136/bmj.g188


Author Walsh, Thom
Barr, Paul James
Thompson, Rachel
Ozanne, Elissa
O'Neill, Ciaran
Elwyn, Glyn
Title Undetermined impact of patient decision support interventions on healthcare costs and savings: Systematic review
Journal name BMJ
ISSN 0959-535X
1756-1833
Publication date 2014-01-23
Year available 2014
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1136/bmj.g188
Open Access Status DOI
Volume 348
Total pages 8
Place of publication London, United Kingdom
Publisher B M J Group
Collection year 2015
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Objective To perform a systematic review of studies that assessed the potential of patient decision support interventions (decision aids) to generate savings.

Design Systematic review.

Data sources After registration with PROSPERO, we searched 12 databases, from inception to 15 March 2013, using relevant MeSH terms and text words. Included studies were assessed with Cochrane’s risk of bias method and Drummond’s quality checklist for economic studies. Per patient costs and projected savings associated with introducing patient decision support interventions were calculated, as well as absolute changes in treatment rates after implementation.

Eligibility criteria Studies were included if they contained quantitative economic data, including savings, spending, costs, cost effectiveness analysis, cost benefit analysis, or resource utilization. We excluded studies that lacked quantitative data on savings, costs, monetary value, and/or resource utilization.

Results After reviewing 1508 citations, we included seven studies with eight analyses. Of these seven studies, four analyses predicted system-wide savings, with two analyses from the same study. The predicted savings range from $8 (£5, €6) to $3068 (£1868, €2243) per patient. Larger savings accompanied reductions in treatment utilization rates. The impact on utilization rates was mixed. Authors used heterogeneous methods to allocate costs and calculate savings. Quality scores were low to moderate (median 4.5, range 0-8 out of 10), and risk of bias across the studies was moderate to high (3.5, range 3-6 out of 6), with studies predicting the most savings having the highest risk of bias. The range of issues identified in the studies included the relative absence of sensitivity analyses, the absence of incremental cost effectiveness ratios, and short time periods.

Conclusion Although there is evidence to show that patients choose more conservative approaches when they become better informed, there is insufficient evidence, as yet, to be confident that the implementation of patient decision support interventions leads to system-wide savings. Further work—with sensitivity analyses, longer time horizons, and more contexts—is required to avoid premature or unrealistic expectations that could jeopardize implementation and lead to the loss of already proved benefits.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: Non HERDC
School of Psychology Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 19 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 22 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sun, 05 Apr 2015, 08:34:21 EST by Miss Rachel Thompson on behalf of School of Psychology