Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34089495›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2022

Validated Tools to Measure Costs for Patients: A Systematic Review.

Thomas G Poder, Lucien P Coulibaly, Myriam Gaudreault, Simon Berthelot, Maude Laberge

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. More than meets the eye: The hidden burden of temporary feeding tubes on children and their families.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Thomas G PoderDépartement de Gestion, Évaluation et Politique de Santé, École de santé publique de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7017-096X
Lucien P CoulibalyFaculté des lettres et sciences humaines, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6922-1325
Myriam GaudreaultDepartment of Operations and Decision Systems, Faculty of Administration, Université Laval, 2325, rue de la Terrasse, bureau 2519, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Simon BerthelotDépartement de médecine familiale et de médecine d'urgence, Faculté de médecine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0372-0586
Maude LabergeDepartment 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.ORCID 0000-0003-1274-136X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsAmong 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.

conclusionsThere 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.

Indexed as

ChecklistDelivery of Health CareHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

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.