Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34753487›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2021

Economic evaluation of advanced practice physiotherapy models of care: a systematic review with meta-analyses.

Simon Lafrance, Anthony Demont, Kednapa Thavorn, Julio Fernandes, Carlo Santaguida, François Desmeules

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Economic Evaluation in Physiotherapy or How to Get the Best Value for Money.Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Cost-effectiveness of specialised manual therapyTherapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Simon LafranceSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. simon.lafrance.1@umontreal.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9933-4526
Anthony DemontINSERM 1123 ECEVE, Faculty of Medicine, Paris-Diderot University, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3794-2195
Kednapa ThavornSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4738-8447
Julio FernandesHôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal Research Center, Université de Montréal Affiliated Research Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3888-832X
Carlo SantaguidaDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medecine, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7841-5327
François DesmeulesSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0290-7031

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this systematic review is to appraise evidence on the economic evaluations of advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) care compared to usual medical care.

methodsSystematic searches were conducted up to September 2021 in selected electronic bibliographical databases. Economic evaluation studies on an APP model of care were included. Economic data such as health care costs, patient costs, productivity losses were extracted. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Meta-analyses were performed and mean differences (MD) in costs per patient were calculated using random-effect inverse variance models. Certainty of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE Approach.

resultsTwelve studies (n = 14,649 participants) including four randomized controlled trials, seven analytical cohort studies and one economic modeling study were included. The clinical settings of APP models of care included primary, emergency and specialized secondary care such as orthopaedics, paediatrics and gynaecology. The majority of the included participants were adults with musculoskeletal disorders (n = 12,915). Based on low quality evidence, health system costs including salaries, diagnostic tests, medications, and follow-up visits were significantly lower with APP care than with usual medical care, at 2 to 12-month follow-up (MD: - 145.02 €/patient; 95%CI: - 251.89 to - 38.14; n = 7648). Based on low quality evidence, patient costs including travel and paid medication prescriptions, or treatments were significantly higher with APP care compared to usual medical care, at 2 to 6-month follow-up (MD: 22.18 €/patient; 95%CI: 0.40 to 43.96; n = 1485). Based on very low quality evidence, no significant differences in productivity losses per patient were reported between both types of care (MD: 450 €/patient; 95%CI: - 80 to 970; n = 819).

conclusionsThis is the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the economic evaluation of APP models of care. Low quality evidence suggests that APP care might result in lower health care costs, but higher patient costs compared to usual medical care. Costs differences may vary depending on various factors such as the cost methodology used and on the clinical setting. More evidence is needed to evaluate cost benefits of APP models of care.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal DiseasesPhysical Therapy ModalitiesAdultChildCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug PrescriptionsHealth Care CostsHumansCost analysis; health care costsEconomicsHealth expendituresHealth planningPhysical therapists“Physical therapy” and “advanced practice”Physical therapy specialty“Physiotherapy”

Identifiers

PMID34753487
PMCPMC8579553

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.