Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34162377›Full record

ReviewBMC palliative care2021

Evidence on the economic value of end-of-life and palliative care interventions: a narrative review of reviews.

Xhyljeta Luta, Baptiste Ottino, Peter Hall, Joanna Bowden, Bee Wee, Joanne Droney, Julia Riley, Joachim Marti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC palliative care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Xhyljeta LutaCentre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Route de la Corniche 10, CH-1010, Lausanne, Switzerland. xhyljeta.luta@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5716-4693
Baptiste OttinoCentre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Route de la Corniche 10, CH-1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Peter HallEdinburgh Cancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Joanna BowdenEdinburgh Cancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Bee WeeHarris Manchester College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Joanne DroneyInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Julia RileyInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Joachim MartiCentre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Route de la Corniche 10, CH-1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

Health Foundation https://www.health.org.uk/research-projects/allocative-efficiency-in-end-of-life-care
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs 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.

methodsReviews 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.

resultsA 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.

conclusionsSome 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.

Indexed as

Hospice and Palliative Care NursingTerminal CareCaregiversDeathHumansPalliative CareCost - effectivenessEnd-of-life careHealth care costsPalliative careTerminal care

Identifiers

PMID34162377
PMCPMC8223342

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.