Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39479876›Full record

SynthesisMedical education2025

Costs and economic impact of student-led clinics-A systematic review.

Debra Mitchell, Stephen Maloney, Luke Robinson, Terry Haines, Jonathan Foo

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Debra MitchellSchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9343-075X
Stephen MaloneySchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2612-5162
Luke RobinsonDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4449-7357
Terry HainesSchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3150-6154
Jonathan FooDepartment of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4533-8307

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeStudent-led clinics generate a range of benefits to multiple stakeholder groups. Students receive important educational opportunities to advance in their training. Patients with limited access to care may access effective care or a higher amount of effective care and so reduce burden on the health care system. The financial viability of student-led clinics run by universities is uncertain, and establishing this is complicated by the range of stakeholder costs and benefits that may be involved. This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence related to the costs and benefits of student-led clinics and report the methods that have been used to measure these costs and benefits.

methodWe conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE All, PsychInfo, CINAHL, A+ Education (Informit), ERIC (ProQuest) and ProQuest Education databases for studies that reported the costs and/or economic benefits of student-led clinics from inception through August 2023. Studies were screened for eligibility, and data were extracted including study characteristics, student-led clinic description and economic outcomes. A narrative synthesis was undertaken due to the heterogeneity of studies.

resultsOf 349 potentially eligible studies, 24 were included. Nine studies (38%) used an outcome description-monetised approach; four used partial economic evaluation (17%); four employed cost description (17%); two used cost approximation (8%); two used cost analyses (8%); and one was a full economic analysis (4%). Studies examined costs or benefits, from the perspective of a range of stakeholders, but few examined both. Only six studies (25%) had established the clinical effectiveness of their service. Student clinics generate costs for universities in supplying supervision, capital and consumables. Benefits are shared by patients, students, universities and the broader health system, however, economic evaluations to date have largely ignored or not monetised/valued these benefits.

conclusionsStudent-led clinics involve many different stakeholders, each of whom may incur costs and reap benefits. This complicates how we can go about trying to establish the economic efficiency and viability of student-led clinics. Measurement of both costs and benefits is needed to understand the efficiency of student-led clinics in comparison to alternatives. Without the full picture, decision-makers may make decisions that are ill-informed and lead to a loss of benefit for society.

Indexed as

Student Run ClinicStudents, MedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisHumans

Identifiers

PMID39479876
PMCPMC11906274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.