Xhyljeta Luta1,2, Baptiste Ottino3, Peter Hall4, Joanna Bowden4,5,6, Bee Wee7, Joanne Droney8,9, Julia Riley8,9, Joachim Marti3,8. 1. Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Route de la Corniche 10, CH-1010, Lausanne, Switzerland. xhyljeta.luta@gmail.com. 2. Institute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK. xhyljeta.luta@gmail.com. 3. Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Route de la Corniche 10, CH-1010, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 5. NHS Fife, Scotland, UK. 6. University of St Andrews, Scotland, UK. 7. Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 8. Institute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK. 9. The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the demand for palliative care increases, more information is needed on how efficient different types of palliative care models are for providing care to dying patients and their caregivers. Evidence on the economic value of treatments and interventions is key to informing resource allocation and ultimately improving the quality and efficiency of healthcare delivery. We assessed the available evidence on the economic value of palliative and end-of-life care interventions across various settings. METHODS: Reviews published between 2000 and 2019 were included. We included reviews that focused on cost-effectiveness, intervention costs and/or healthcare resource use. Two reviewers extracted data independently and in duplicate from the included studies. Data on the key characteristics of the studies were extracted, including the aim of the study, design, population, type of intervention and comparator, (cost-) effectiveness resource use, main findings and conclusions. RESULTS: A total of 43 reviews were included in the analysis. Overall, most evidence on cost-effectiveness relates to home-based interventions and suggests that they offer substantial savings to the health system, including a decrease in total healthcare costs, resource use and improvement in patient and caregivers' outcomes. The evidence of interventions delivered across other settings was generally inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Some palliative care models may contribute to dual improvement in quality of care via lower rates of aggressive medicalization in the last phase of life accompanied by a reduction in costs. Hospital-based palliative care interventions may improve patient outcomes, healthcare utilization and costs. There is a need for greater consistency in reporting outcome measures, the informal costs of caring, and costs associated with hospice.
BACKGROUND: As the demand for palliative care increases, more information is needed on how efficient different types of palliative care models are for providing care to dying patients and their caregivers. Evidence on the economic value of treatments and interventions is key to informing resource allocation and ultimately improving the quality and efficiency of healthcare delivery. We assessed the available evidence on the economic value of palliative and end-of-life care interventions across various settings. METHODS: Reviews published between 2000 and 2019 were included. We included reviews that focused on cost-effectiveness, intervention costs and/or healthcare resource use. Two reviewers extracted data independently and in duplicate from the included studies. Data on the key characteristics of the studies were extracted, including the aim of the study, design, population, type of intervention and comparator, (cost-) effectiveness resource use, main findings and conclusions. RESULTS: A total of 43 reviews were included in the analysis. Overall, most evidence on cost-effectiveness relates to home-based interventions and suggests that they offer substantial savings to the health system, including a decrease in total healthcare costs, resource use and improvement in patient and caregivers' outcomes. The evidence of interventions delivered across other settings was generally inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Some palliative care models may contribute to dual improvement in quality of care via lower rates of aggressive medicalization in the last phase of life accompanied by a reduction in costs. Hospital-based palliative care interventions may improve patient outcomes, healthcare utilization and costs. There is a need for greater consistency in reporting outcome measures, the informal costs of caring, and costs associated with hospice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost - effectiveness; End-of-life care; Health care costs; Palliative care; Terminal care
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Nancy L Keating; John Z Ayanian; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Katherine L Kahn; Christine S Ritchie; Jane C Weeks; Craig C Earle; Mary B Landrum Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Justin E Bekelman; Scott D Halpern; Carl Rudolf Blankart; Julie P Bynum; Joachim Cohen; Robert Fowler; Stein Kaasa; Lukas Kwietniewski; Hans Olav Melberg; Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen; Mariska Oosterveld-Vlug; Andrew Pring; Jonas Schreyögg; Connie M Ulrich; Julia Verne; Hannah Wunsch; Ezekiel J Emanuel Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David Hui; Maxine De La Cruz; Masanori Mori; Henrique A Parsons; Jung Hye Kwon; Isabel Torres-Vigil; Sun Hyun Kim; Rony Dev; Ronald Hutchins; Christiana Liem; Duck-Hee Kang; Eduardo Bruera Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-08-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Richard A Mularski; Kathleen Puntillo; Basil Varkey; Brian L Erstad; Mary Jo Grap; Hugh C Gilbert; Denise Li; Justine Medina; Chris Pasero; Curtis N Sessler Journal: Chest Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Glenn Gade; Ingrid Venohr; Douglas Conner; Kathleen McGrady; Jeffrey Beane; Robert H Richardson; Marilyn P Williams; Marcia Liberson; Mark Blum; Richard Della Penna Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Peter Tanuseputro; Walter P Wodchis; Rob Fowler; Peter Walker; Yu Qing Bai; Sue E Bronskill; Douglas Manuel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Radoslaw Panczak; Xhyljeta Luta; Maud Maessen; Andreas E Stuck; Claudia Berlin; Kurt Schmidlin; Oliver Reich; Viktor von Wyl; David C Goodman; Matthias Egger; Marcel Zwahlen; Kerri M Clough-Gorr Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 2.983