ReviewHealth economics review2026
A systematic review of economic evaluations of community-based healthcare interventions for neurodisability management.
Review in Health economics review, 2026. 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
backgroundIndividuals with neurodisabilities require comprehensive support to improve outcomes in multiple areas related to their primary condition, such as continence, mobility, and psychological wellbeing. Insufficient management of neurodisabilities can negatively impact an individual’s quality of life, and the resulting economic burden can be significant. One way to ensure quality of care in an economically viable way is through community-based service provision, allowing individuals to seek healthcare locally. This systematic literature review identifies, collates, and summarises empirical evidence on economic evaluations and their corresponding methods used to investigate the economic impact of community-based healthcare interventions for neurodisability management.
methodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted across six databases, with study selection guided by a Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) framework. Studies published after January 1990 assessing minimally to non-invasive community-based interventions for continence, mobility and psychological wellbeing were considered.
resultsOf the 1,216 studies identified, 94 were selected for a full-text examination, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria. Full economic evaluations were performed in eight studies, while six were partial economic evaluations. Just five studies describe interventions explicitly delivered in the community; the remainder describe clinical-based interventions which could be implemented at the community level or interventions provided in both community and clinical settings. Most studies were performed from the narrower healthcare provider perspective, suggesting that costs may be underestimated. Studies that measured health-related quality of life outcomes used either generic preference-based measures alone or in combination with a non-preference-based or disease-specific measure.
conclusionOverall, economic evidence regarding the use of community-based interventions for neurodisability management is scarce, reflecting both a limited number of such interventions and a lack of formal economic evaluations assessing them. Moreover, the methodology used to determine cost effectiveness is heterogenous. Choice of intervention, population, perspective, and time horizon was possibly restricted by the trial-based data available. Future studies could consider using decision analytical modelling to overcome some of these barriers.
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.