Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28327120›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2017

Where's the evidence? a systematic review of economic analyses of residential aged care infrastructure.

Tiffany Easton, Rachel Milte, Maria Crotty, Julie Ratcliffe

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Developing dimensions for a new preference-based quality of life instrument for older people receiving aged care services in the community.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Article
  6. An Outreach Rehabilitation Program for Nursing Home Residents After Hip Fracture May Be Cost-Saving.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2020
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tiffany EastonFlinders Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. tiffany.easton@flinders.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-5302-1428
Rachel MilteNHMRC Partnership Centre on Dealing with Cognitive and Related Functional Decline in Older People, Canberra, Australia.
Maria CrottyNHMRC Partnership Centre on Dealing with Cognitive and Related Functional Decline in Older People, Canberra, Australia.
Julie RatcliffeNHMRC Partnership Centre on Dealing with Cognitive and Related Functional Decline in Older People, Canberra, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResidential care infrastructure, in terms of the characteristics of the organisation (such as proprietary status, size, and location) and the physical environment, have been found to directly influence resident outcomes. This review aimed to summarise the existing literature of economic evaluations of residential care infrastructure.

methodsA systematic review of English language articles using AgeLine, CINAHL, Econlit, Informit (databases in Health; Business and Law; Social Sciences), Medline, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science with retrieval up to 14 December 2015. The search strategy combined terms relating to nursing homes, economics, and older people. Full economic evaluations, partial economic evaluations, and randomised trials reporting more limited economic information, such as estimates of resource use or costs of interventions were included. Data was extracted using predefined data fields and synthesized in a narrative summary to address the stated review objective.

resultsFourteen studies containing an economic component were identified. None of the identified studies attempted to systematically link costs and outcomes in the form of a cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility analysis. There was a wide variation in approaches taken for valuing the outcomes associated with differential residential care infrastructures: 8 studies utilized various clinical outcomes as proxies for the quality of care provided, and 2 focused on resident outcomes including agitation, quality of life, and the quality of care interactions. Only 2 studies included residents living with dementia.

conclusionsRobust economic evidence is needed to inform aged care facility design. Future research should focus on identifying appropriate and meaningful outcome measures that can be used at a service planning level, as well as the broader health benefits and cost-saving potential of different organisational and environmental characteristics in residential care.

trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number CRD42015015977 .

Indexed as

AgedCost-Benefit AnalysisDementiaHumansNursing HomesProspective StudiesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeAgeingEconomic evaluationInfrastructureLong-term careSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28327120
PMCPMC5361718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.