Evidence on bringing specialised care to the primary level-effects on the Quadruple Aim and cost-effectiveness: a systematic review
Lovén, Maria; Pitkänen, Laura J; Paananen, Markus; Torkki, Paulus (2024-01-02)
BioMed Central
02.01.2024
Lovén, M., Pitkänen, L.J., Paananen, M. et al. Evidence on bringing specialised care to the primary level—effects on the Quadruple Aim and cost-effectiveness: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 24, 2 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10159-6
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
© The Author(s) 2023. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
© The Author(s) 2023. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-202401261480
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-202401261480
Tiivistelmä
Abstract
Background:
To achieve the Quadruple Aim of improving population health, enhancing the patient experience of care, reducing costs and improving professional satisfaction requires reorganisation of health care. One way to accomplish this aim is by integrating healthcare services on different levels. This systematic review aims to determine whether it is cost-effective to bring a hospital specialist into primary care from the perspectives of commissioners, patients and professionals.
Methods:
The review follows the PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Scopus and EBSCO (CINAHL and Academic Search Ultimate) for the period of 1992–2022. In total, 4254 articles were found, and 21 original articles that reported on both quality and costs, were included. The JBI and ROBINS-I tools were used for quality appraisal. In data synthesis, vote counting and effect direction plots were used together with a sign test. The strength of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE.
Results:
Cost-effectiveness was only measured in two studies, and it remains unclear. Costs and cost drivers for commissioners were lower in the intervention in 52% of the studies; this proportion rose to 67% of the studies when cost for patients was also considered, while health outcomes, patient experience and professional satisfaction mostly improved but at least remained the same. Costs for the patient, where measured, were mainly lower in the intervention group. Professional satisfaction was reported in 48% of the studies; in 80% it was higher in the intervention group. In 24% of the studies, higher monetary costs were reported for commissioners, whereas the clinical outcomes, patient experience and costs for the patient mainly improved.
Conclusions:
The cost-effectiveness of the hospital specialist in primary care model remains inconclusive. Only a few studies have comprehensively calculated costs, evaluating cost drivers. However, it seems that when the service is well organised and the population is large enough, the concept can be profitable for the commissioner also. From the patient’s perspective, the model is superior and could even promote equity through improved access. Professional satisfaction is mostly higher compared to the traditional model. The certainty of evidence is very low for cost and low for quality.
Trial registration:
PROSPERO CRD42022325232, 12.4.2022.
Background:
To achieve the Quadruple Aim of improving population health, enhancing the patient experience of care, reducing costs and improving professional satisfaction requires reorganisation of health care. One way to accomplish this aim is by integrating healthcare services on different levels. This systematic review aims to determine whether it is cost-effective to bring a hospital specialist into primary care from the perspectives of commissioners, patients and professionals.
Methods:
The review follows the PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Scopus and EBSCO (CINAHL and Academic Search Ultimate) for the period of 1992–2022. In total, 4254 articles were found, and 21 original articles that reported on both quality and costs, were included. The JBI and ROBINS-I tools were used for quality appraisal. In data synthesis, vote counting and effect direction plots were used together with a sign test. The strength of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE.
Results:
Cost-effectiveness was only measured in two studies, and it remains unclear. Costs and cost drivers for commissioners were lower in the intervention in 52% of the studies; this proportion rose to 67% of the studies when cost for patients was also considered, while health outcomes, patient experience and professional satisfaction mostly improved but at least remained the same. Costs for the patient, where measured, were mainly lower in the intervention group. Professional satisfaction was reported in 48% of the studies; in 80% it was higher in the intervention group. In 24% of the studies, higher monetary costs were reported for commissioners, whereas the clinical outcomes, patient experience and costs for the patient mainly improved.
Conclusions:
The cost-effectiveness of the hospital specialist in primary care model remains inconclusive. Only a few studies have comprehensively calculated costs, evaluating cost drivers. However, it seems that when the service is well organised and the population is large enough, the concept can be profitable for the commissioner also. From the patient’s perspective, the model is superior and could even promote equity through improved access. Professional satisfaction is mostly higher compared to the traditional model. The certainty of evidence is very low for cost and low for quality.
Trial registration:
PROSPERO CRD42022325232, 12.4.2022.
Kokoelmat
- Avoin saatavuus [38865]
Ellei muuten mainita, aineiston lisenssi on https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/