Cost-of-illness studies in the United States: A systematic review of methodologies used for direct cost
Cost-of-illness studies in the United States: A systematic review of methodologies used for direct cost
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00210.x
复制
发表时间：
2008-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Ward, Marcia M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Clabaugh, Gerd;Ward, Marcia M.
目的：我们进行了系统的审查，以检查研究人员在开发疾病成本（COI）研究中使用的方法。本综述旨在对已发表文献中使用的方法进行分类，包括文献中分析的角度、范围、护理组成部分、数据集和用于直接成本的评估方法。它得出结论，目前COI研究方法的充分性，并提出建议，以改善themes.Methods：在线书目信息服务HealthSTAR（其中包括MEDLINE）被用来搜索COI研究在2000年至2004年期间发表的研究文献。检索策略使用术语“疾病成本”作为MeSH（医学主题词）term.Results：HealthSTAR文献检索确定了650篇文章的参考文献。对摘要进行审查后，确定了其中170篇，以便进行更详细的审查。这一过程确定了52篇符合COI研究所有标准的文章。我们确定了52篇文章中分析的218个护理组成部分。私人保险或雇主索赔数据集包括最大的来源，利用率和成本信息之间的studies.Conclusion：分析疾病的成本提出了有用的机会，与公众和决策者沟通的相对重要性，具体的疾病和伤害。然而，我们的研究表明，COI研究采用不同的方法，许多文章有方法上的局限性。如果没有公认的标准来指导研究人员进行这些研究，政策制定者和公众必须对计算方法和随后的结果保持警惕。
Objectives: We undertake a systematic review to examine the methods used by researchers in developing cost-of-illness (COI) studies. This review aims to categorize the approaches that the published literature uses in terms of perspective, scope, components of care analyzed in the literature, data sets, and valuation approaches used for direct cost. It draws conclusions regarding the adequacy of current COI research methods and makes recommendations on improving them.Methods: The online bibliographic information service HealthSTAR (which incorporates MEDLINE) was used to search for COI studies in the research literature published during the period from 2000 to 2004. The search strategy used the term "cost of illness" as a MeSH (medical subject heading) term.Results: The HealthSTAR literature search identified references to 650 articles. Review of abstracts resulted in the identification of 170 of these for a more detailed review. This process identified 52 articles that met all criteria of COI studies. We identified 218 components of care analyzed across the 52 articles. Private-insurance or employer-claims data sets comprised the largest source of utilization and cost information among the studies.Conclusion: Analyzing cost of illness presents useful opportunities for communicating with the public and policymakers on the relative importance of specific diseases and injuries. Our research, however, indicates that COI studies employ varied approaches and many articles have methodological limitations. Without well-accepted standards to guide researchers in their execution of these studies, policymakers and the general public must be wary of the methods used in their calculation and subsequent results.