Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24458654›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014

Undetermined impact of patient decision support interventions on healthcare costs and savings: systematic review.

Thom Walsh, Paul James Barr, Rachel Thompson, Elissa Ozanne, Ciaran O'Neill, Glyn Elwyn

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
44.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Cost effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for parents deciding about MMR vaccination: a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. A Joanna Briggs Institute Framework Approach to Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Thom WalshDartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, Dartmouth College, 37 Dewey Field Road, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Paul James Barr
Rachel Thompson
Elissa Ozanne
Ciaran O'Neill
Glyn Elwyn
Dartmouth College · USDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · USOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo perform a systematic review of studies that assessed the potential of patient decision support interventions (decision aids) to generate savings.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: After registration with PROSPERO, we searched 12 databases, from inception to 15 March 2013, using relevant MeSH terms and text words. Included studies were assessed with Cochrane's risk of bias method and Drummond's quality checklist for economic studies. Per patient costs and projected savings associated with introducing patient decision support interventions were calculated, as well as absolute changes in treatment rates after implementation. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they contained quantitative economic data, including savings, spending, costs, cost effectiveness analysis, cost benefit analysis, or resource utilization. We excluded studies that lacked quantitative data on savings, costs, monetary value, and/or resource utilization.

resultsAfter reviewing 1508 citations, we included seven studies with eight analyses. Of these seven studies, four analyses predicted system-wide savings, with two analyses from the same study. The predicted savings range from $8 (£5, €6) to $3068 (£1868, €2243) per patient. Larger savings accompanied reductions in treatment utilization rates. The impact on utilization rates was mixed. Authors used heterogeneous methods to allocate costs and calculate savings. Quality scores were low to moderate (median 4.5, range 0-8 out of 10), and risk of bias across the studies was moderate to high (3.5, range 3-6 out of 6), with studies predicting the most savings having the highest risk of bias. The range of issues identified in the studies included the relative absence of sensitivity analyses, the absence of incremental cost effectiveness ratios, and short time periods.

conclusionAlthough there is evidence to show that patients choose more conservative approaches when they become better informed, there is insufficient evidence, as yet, to be confident that the implementation of patient decision support interventions leads to system-wide savings. Further work-with sensitivity analyses, longer time horizons, and more contexts-is required to avoid premature or unrealistic expectations that could jeopardize implementation and lead to the loss of already proved benefits. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42012003421.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesHealth Care CostsCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth PromotionHumans

Identifiers

PMID24458654
PMCPMC3900320
OpenAlexW2135942756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.