Stephen Rocks1, Daniela Berntson1, Alejandro Gil-Salmerón2, Mudathira Kadu3, Nieves Ehrenberg4, Viktoria Stein4, Apostolos Tsiachristas5. 1. Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Polibienestar Research Institute, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain. 3. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. International Foundation for Integrated Care, Oxford, UK. 5. Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. apostolos.tsiachristas@ndph.ox.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health and care services are becoming increasingly strained and healthcare authorities worldwide are investing in integrated care in the hope of delivering higher-quality services while containing costs. The cost-effectiveness of integrated care, however, remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to appraise current economic evaluations of integrated care and assesses the impact on outcomes and costs. METHODS: CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, Medline/PubMed, NHS EED, OECD Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and WHOLIS databases from inception to 31 December 2019 were searched to identify studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of integrated care. Study quality was assessed using an adapted CHEERS checklist and used as weight in a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate mean cost and mean outcomes of integrated care. RESULTS: Selected studies achieved a relatively low average quality score of 65.0% (± 18.7%). Overall meta-analyses from 34 studies showed a significant decrease in costs (0.94; CI 0.90-0.99) and a statistically significant improvement in outcomes (1.06; CI 1.05-1.08) associated with integrated care compared to the control. There is substantial heterogeneity in both costs and outcomes across subgroups. Results were significant in studies lasting over 12 months (12 studies), with both a decrease in cost (0.87; CI 0.80-0.94) and improvement in outcomes (1.15; 95% CI 1.11-1.18) for integrated care interventions; whereas, these associations were not significant in studies with follow-up less than a year. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that integrated care is likely to reduce cost and improve outcome. However, existing evidence varies largely and is of moderate quality. Future economic evaluation should target methodological issues to aid policy decisions with more robust evidence on the cost-effectiveness of integrated care.
BACKGROUND: Health and care services are becoming increasingly strained and healthcare authorities worldwide are investing in integrated care in the hope of delivering higher-quality services while containing costs. The cost-effectiveness of integrated care, however, remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to appraise current economic evaluations of integrated care and assesses the impact on outcomes and costs. METHODS: CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, Medline/PubMed, NHS EED, OECD Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and WHOLIS databases from inception to 31 December 2019 were searched to identify studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of integrated care. Study quality was assessed using an adapted CHEERS checklist and used as weight in a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate mean cost and mean outcomes of integrated care. RESULTS: Selected studies achieved a relatively low average quality score of 65.0% (± 18.7%). Overall meta-analyses from 34 studies showed a significant decrease in costs (0.94; CI 0.90-0.99) and a statistically significant improvement in outcomes (1.06; CI 1.05-1.08) associated with integrated care compared to the control. There is substantial heterogeneity in both costs and outcomes across subgroups. Results were significant in studies lasting over 12 months (12 studies), with both a decrease in cost (0.87; CI 0.80-0.94) and improvement in outcomes (1.15; 95% CI 1.11-1.18) for integrated care interventions; whereas, these associations were not significant in studies with follow-up less than a year. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that integrated care is likely to reduce cost and improve outcome. However, existing evidence varies largely and is of moderate quality. Future economic evaluation should target methodological issues to aid policy decisions with more robust evidence on the cost-effectiveness of integrated care.
Authors: Sara Spinella; Nicole McCune; Rebecca McCarthy; Maria El-Tahch; Jennifer George; Mary Dorritie; Alyssa Ford; Kira Posteraro; Deborah DiNardo Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Gregory A Talavera; Sheila F Castañeda; Paulina M Mendoza; Maria Lopez-Gurrola; Scott Roesch; Margaret S Pichardo; Melawhy L Garcia; Fatima Muñoz; Linda C Gallo Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 3.626
Authors: Anne Hendry; Maimie Thompson; Peter Knight; Eleanor McCallum; Alison Taylor; Helen Rainey; Andrew Strong Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: Lauren Ward; Anne McMurray; Chi Kin Law; Gabor Mihala; Martin Connor; Paul Scuffham Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: Loraine Busetto; Johanna Hoffmann; Christina Stang; Hemasse Amiri; Fatih Seker; Jan Purrucker; Peter Arthur Ringleb; Simon Nagel; Martin Bendszus; Wolfgang Wick; Christoph Gumbinger Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: Karen Beny; Benjamin du Sartz de Vigneulles; Florence Carrouel; Denis Bourgeois; Valérie Gay; Claude Negrier; Claude Dussart Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 3.390