Thomas G Poder1,2, Lucien P Coulibaly3,4, Myriam Gaudreault5, Simon Berthelot6,7, Maude Laberge8,9,10. 1. Département de Gestion, Évaluation et Politique de Santé, École de santé publique de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada. 2. Centre de recherche de l'Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal, Montreal, Canada. 3. Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada. 4. Centre de Recherche sur le Vieillissement, Sherbrooke, Canada. 5. Department of Operations and Decision Systems, Faculty of Administration, Université Laval, 2325, rue de la Terrasse, bureau 2519, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada. 6. Département de médecine familiale et de médecine d'urgence, Faculté de médecine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada. 7. Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Axe Santé des populations et Pratiques optimales en santé, Quebec, Canada. 8. Department of Operations and Decision Systems, Faculty of Administration, Université Laval, 2325, rue de la Terrasse, bureau 2519, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada. Maude.laberge@fsa.ulaval.ca. 9. Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Axe Santé des populations et Pratiques optimales en santé, Quebec, Canada. Maude.laberge@fsa.ulaval.ca. 10. Vitam, Centre de recherche en santé durable de l'Université Laval, Quebec, Canada. Maude.laberge@fsa.ulaval.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing healthcare expenditures is a major concern to insurers and governments, but also to patients who must pay a greater proportion of their healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to identify validated tools for measuring the costs of a health condition for patients as well as the different elements to be considered when measuring costs from the patient's perspective. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted from 1984 to December 2020. The search strategy was applied to seven different databases that had been identified prior as pertinent sources. Two authors independently extracted and compiled data. In case of disagreement, arbitration by two other researchers was conducted. The methodological quality of the included articles was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. RESULTS: Among the 679 retrieved articles, nine met the inclusion criteria. The types of costs evaluated in these studies included direct costs for patients as well as for caregivers, indirect costs, and intangible costs. The development and validation processes used in these articles included a literature search, a discussion with the involved stakeholders, the development of an initial questionnaire, the testing of the questionnaire on a sample of patients, and a critical review. Regarding the psychometric properties of the tool, only five studies tested the reliability and validity of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: There are very few validated tools available to measure the different health-related costs from a patient perspective. Further research is needed to develop and validate a versatile and generalizable tool using a rigorous methodological process.
BACKGROUND: Increasing healthcare expenditures is a major concern to insurers and governments, but also to patients who must pay a greater proportion of their healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to identify validated tools for measuring the costs of a health condition for patients as well as the different elements to be considered when measuring costs from the patient's perspective. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted from 1984 to December 2020. The search strategy was applied to seven different databases that had been identified prior as pertinent sources. Two authors independently extracted and compiled data. In case of disagreement, arbitration by two other researchers was conducted. The methodological quality of the included articles was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. RESULTS: Among the 679 retrieved articles, nine met the inclusion criteria. The types of costs evaluated in these studies included direct costs for patients as well as for caregivers, indirect costs, and intangible costs. The development and validation processes used in these articles included a literature search, a discussion with the involved stakeholders, the development of an initial questionnaire, the testing of the questionnaire on a sample of patients, and a critical review. Regarding the psychometric properties of the tool, only five studies tested the reliability and validity of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: There are very few validated tools available to measure the different health-related costs from a patient perspective. Further research is needed to develop and validate a versatile and generalizable tool using a rigorous methodological process.
Authors: Nicola J Cooper; Miranda Mugford; Deborah P M Symmons; Elizabeth M Barrett; David G I Scott Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.666