A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Clinical Nursing Practices

Author:

Guan YushanORCID,Ru NanORCID,Kang RuifuORCID,Jia XiangpingORCID,Xu TingtingORCID,Meng ZhaolinORCID

Abstract

Background. The misallocation of scarce healthcare resources globally raises concerns regarding the underuse of high‐value care and the overuse of low‐value care. Economic evaluations can help policy makers determine whether an intervention presents a better value for money and desirable clinical benefits, thus realizing value‐based care. Aim. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic evaluations of clinical nursing practices to advance knowledge on value‐based care. Methods. A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Tufts CEA Registry for full economic evaluations of clinical nursing practices from January 2013 to January 2023. Outcomes were incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios, incremental cost‐utility ratios, incremental cost‐benefit ratios, incremental net benefit, and the differences in costs for cost‐minimization studies. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria–extended checklist. Results were synthesized using permutation matrices for all studies. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023415918). Results. Thirty‐five studies were included in this review, with 27 studies categorized as good methodological quality and 8 as moderate quality. Clinical nursing practices were dominant (i.e., more effective and less costly) in 19 studies, potentially cost‐effective depending on willingness‐to‐pay thresholds in 15 studies, and were dominated (i.e., less effective and more costly) in 1 study. Conclusion. Our study advanced knowledge on value‐based care for clinical nursing practices. Results suggest that most clinical nursing practices studied may be clearly economically favourable or potentially favourable. Implications for Nursing Management. The results of this review provide valuable insights into value‐based care in nursing and facilitate the decision‐making of healthcare policymakers regarding health resource allocation to achieve value‐based care.

Funder

National Natural Science Foundation of China

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3