4.6 Article

Cost-of-illness studies in the United States: A systematic review of methodologies used for direct cost

期刊

VALUE IN HEALTH
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 13-21

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00210.x

关键词

cost-of-illness; direct cost; standards; systematic review

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [HS015009] Funding Source: Medline
  2. AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY [R01HS015009] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We undertake a systematic review to examine the methods used by researchers in developing cost-of-illness (COI) studies. This review aims to categorize the approaches that the published literature uses in terms of perspective, scope, components of care analyzed in the literature, data sets, and valuation approaches used for direct cost. It draws conclusions regarding the adequacy of current COI research methods and makes recommendations on improving them. Methods: The online bibliographic information service HealthSTAR (which incorporates MEDLINE) was used to search for COI studies in the research literature published during the period from 2000 to 2004. The search strategy used the term cost of illness as a MeSH (medical subject heading) term. Results: The HealthSTAR literature search identified references to 650 articles. Review of abstracts resulted in the identification of 170 of these for a more detailed review. This process identified 52 articles that met all criteria of COI studies. We identified 218 components of care analyzed across the 52 articles. Private-insurance or employer-claims data sets comprised the largest source of utilization and cost information among the studies. Conclusion: Analyzing cost of illness presents useful opportunities for communicating with the public and policymakers on the relative importance of specific diseases and injuries. Our research, however, indicates that COI studies employ varied approaches and many articles have methodological limitations. Without well-accepted standards to guide researchers in their execution of these studies, policymakers and the general public must be wary of the methods used in their calculation and subsequent results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据