ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
The Economic Impact of Community-Based Allied Health on the Acute Sector: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Community-based allied health (AH) services have previously demonstrated a potential positive impact on acute care utilization, with wide acceptance among consumers. However, little is known about their economic impact. This systematic review aimed to address this gap. The primary outcomes of interest included: (a) costs of at least one type of acute care utilization; and (b) cost-effectiveness regarding acute care. The secondary outcomes of interest included total healthcare and/or non-healthcare costs. An a priori protocol was registered with PROSPERO [CRD42023437013]. Inclusion criteria were: (a) stand-alone interventions led by practitioners/graduates from one or more target AH professions; (b) reported acute care utilization costs as a primary or secondary outcome; (c) full or partial economic evaluations; and (d) studies published in English from 2010 onward. Eligible studies were identified from relevant bibliographic databases and gray literature search (September and October 2023). Modified McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool for quantitative studies, McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and Consensus on Health Economic Criteria List were used to assess methodological quality. Narrative synthesis and cost-effectiveness planes were used for synthesizing and presenting the findings. Twelve studies, comprising eight cost analyses and four full economic evaluations, were included. Both single disciplinary (led by physiotherapists, dietitians, social workers, or exercise physiologists) and multidisciplinary (involved two to five AH professions) services were identified. Collectively, ten studies showed cost savings in acute care, while seven indicated varying degrees of cost-effectiveness and cost savings in total healthcare and non-healthcare, from pre-post and between-group comparisons. The findings demonstrated trends towards economic benefits of AH, highlighting their potential to alleviate the pressures on the acute sector and even the wider health system. However, the evidence is limited and of lower quality, emphasizing cautious interpretation. This review underscores the value of AH services and highlights key areas requiring action to strengthen the evidence base.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.