Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34529165›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2021

Assessing direct healthcare costs when restricted to self-reported data: a scoping review.

Samira B Jabakhanji, Jan Sorensen, Gintare Valentelyte, Lee Ann Burke, Brendan McElroy, Aileen Murphy

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Economic burden due to COVID-19 in a Colombian Caribbean state, 2020 and 2021.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2024
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Samira B JabakhanjiHealthcare Outcomes Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, County Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4870-9110
Jan SorensenHealthcare Outcomes Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, County Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0857-9267
Gintare ValentelyteHealthcare Outcomes Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, County Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9188-3854
Lee Ann BurkeDepartment of Economics, Cork University Business School, University College Cork, Cork, County Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8970-3578
Brendan McElroyDepartment of Economics, Cork University Business School, University College Cork, Cork, County Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0062-330X
Aileen MurphyDepartment of Economics, Cork University Business School, University College Cork, Cork, County Cork, Ireland. aileen.murphy@ucc.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3062-0692
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IEUniversity College Cork · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the absence of electronic health records, analysis of direct healthcare costs often relies on resource utilisation data collected from patient-reported surveys. This scoping review explored the availability, use and methodological details of self-reported healthcare service utilisation and cost data to assess healthcare costs in Ireland.

methodsPopulation health surveys were identified from Irish data repositories and details were collated in an inventory to inform the literature search. Irish cost studies published in peer-reviewed and grey sources from 2009 to 2019 were included if they used self-reported data on healthcare utilisation or cost. Two independent researchers extracted studies' details and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used for reporting.

resultsIn total, 27 surveys were identified containing varying details of healthcare utilisation/cost, health status, demographic characteristics and health-related risk and behaviour. Of those surveys, 21 were general population surveys and six were study-specific ad-hoc surveys. Furthermore, 14 cost studies were identified which used retrospective self-reported data on healthcare utilisation or cost from ten of the identified surveys. Nine of these cost studies used ad-hoc surveys and five used data from pre-existing population surveys. Compared to population surveys, ad-hoc surveys contained more detailed information on resource use, albeit with smaller sample sizes. Recall periods ranged from 1 week for frequently used services to 1 year for rarer service use, or longer for once-off costs. A range of perspectives (societal, healthcare and public sector) and costing approaches (bottom-up costing and a mix of top-down and bottom-up) were used. The majority of studies (n = 11) determined unit prices using multiple sources, including national healthcare tariffs, literature and expert views. Moreover, most studies (n = 13) reported limitations concerning data availability, risk of bias and generalisability. Various sampling, data collection and analysis strategies were employed to minimise these.

conclusionPopulation surveys can aid cost assessments in jurisdictions that lack electronic health records, unique patient identifiers and data interoperability. To increase utilisation, researchers wanting to conduct cost analyses need to be aware of and have access to existing data sources. Future population surveys should be designed to address reported limitations and capture comprehensive health-related, demographic and resource use data.

Indexed as

CostsIrelandResourcesScoping reviewSurveys

Identifiers

PMID34529165
PMCPMC8444520
OpenAlexW3199923752

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.