Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of implementing guidelines on low back pain management in primary care: is transferability to other countries possible?

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim is to identify, summarise and quality assess the available literature on the cost-effectiveness of implementing low back pain guidelines in primary care. The secondary aim is to assess the transferability of the results to determine whether the identified studies can be included in a comparison with a Danish implementation study to establish which strategy procures most value for money.

DESIGN: Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES: The search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Scopus, CINAHL and EconLit. No restrictions were made concerning language, year of publication or publication type. The bibliographies of the included studies were searched for any studies not captured in the literature search.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: To be included, a study must be: (1) based on a randomised controlled trial comparing implementation strategies, (2) the guideline must concern treatment of low back pain in primary care and (3) the economic evaluation should contain primary data on cost and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS: The title and abstract were assessed for 308 studies; of these, three studies were found eligible for inclusion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list showed that the 3 studies were of moderate methodological quality while application of Welte's model showed that cost results from two studies could, with adjustments, be transferred to a Danish setting. It was questionable whether the associated effects could be transferred.

CONCLUSIONS: Despite the resemblance of the implementation strategies, the 3 studies report conflicting results on cost-effectiveness. This review showed that transferring the results from the identified studies is not straightforward and underlines the importance of transparent reporting. Future research should focus on transferability of effects, for example, development of a supplement to Welte's model.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere011042
JournalB M J Open
Volume6
Issue number6
Number of pages10
ISSN2044-6055
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Pain Management
Low Back Pain
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Primary Health Care
Guidelines
Publications
Social Adjustment
Costs and Cost Analysis
Bibliography
PubMed
Libraries
Consensus
Language
Randomized Controlled Trials
Economics
Databases
Health

Cite this

@article{66ecf55f179240ecb26e006e7f962bcd,
title = "Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of implementing guidelines on low back pain management in primary care: is transferability to other countries possible?",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: The primary aim is to identify, summarise and quality assess the available literature on the cost-effectiveness of implementing low back pain guidelines in primary care. The secondary aim is to assess the transferability of the results to determine whether the identified studies can be included in a comparison with a Danish implementation study to establish which strategy procures most value for money.DESIGN: Systematic review.DATA SOURCES: The search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Scopus, CINAHL and EconLit. No restrictions were made concerning language, year of publication or publication type. The bibliographies of the included studies were searched for any studies not captured in the literature search.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: To be included, a study must be: (1) based on a randomised controlled trial comparing implementation strategies, (2) the guideline must concern treatment of low back pain in primary care and (3) the economic evaluation should contain primary data on cost and cost-effectiveness.RESULTS: The title and abstract were assessed for 308 studies; of these, three studies were found eligible for inclusion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list showed that the 3 studies were of moderate methodological quality while application of Welte's model showed that cost results from two studies could, with adjustments, be transferred to a Danish setting. It was questionable whether the associated effects could be transferred.CONCLUSIONS: Despite the resemblance of the implementation strategies, the 3 studies report conflicting results on cost-effectiveness. This review showed that transferring the results from the identified studies is not straightforward and underlines the importance of transparent reporting. Future research should focus on transferability of effects, for example, development of a supplement to Welte's model.",
author = "Jensen, {Cathrine Elgaard} and Jensen, {Martin Bach} and Allan Riis and Petersen, {Karin Dam}",
note = "Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011042",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Group",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of implementing guidelines on low back pain management in primary care

T2 - is transferability to other countries possible?

AU - Jensen, Cathrine Elgaard

AU - Jensen, Martin Bach

AU - Riis, Allan

AU - Petersen, Karin Dam

N1 - Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - OBJECTIVE: The primary aim is to identify, summarise and quality assess the available literature on the cost-effectiveness of implementing low back pain guidelines in primary care. The secondary aim is to assess the transferability of the results to determine whether the identified studies can be included in a comparison with a Danish implementation study to establish which strategy procures most value for money.DESIGN: Systematic review.DATA SOURCES: The search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Scopus, CINAHL and EconLit. No restrictions were made concerning language, year of publication or publication type. The bibliographies of the included studies were searched for any studies not captured in the literature search.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: To be included, a study must be: (1) based on a randomised controlled trial comparing implementation strategies, (2) the guideline must concern treatment of low back pain in primary care and (3) the economic evaluation should contain primary data on cost and cost-effectiveness.RESULTS: The title and abstract were assessed for 308 studies; of these, three studies were found eligible for inclusion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list showed that the 3 studies were of moderate methodological quality while application of Welte's model showed that cost results from two studies could, with adjustments, be transferred to a Danish setting. It was questionable whether the associated effects could be transferred.CONCLUSIONS: Despite the resemblance of the implementation strategies, the 3 studies report conflicting results on cost-effectiveness. This review showed that transferring the results from the identified studies is not straightforward and underlines the importance of transparent reporting. Future research should focus on transferability of effects, for example, development of a supplement to Welte's model.

AB - OBJECTIVE: The primary aim is to identify, summarise and quality assess the available literature on the cost-effectiveness of implementing low back pain guidelines in primary care. The secondary aim is to assess the transferability of the results to determine whether the identified studies can be included in a comparison with a Danish implementation study to establish which strategy procures most value for money.DESIGN: Systematic review.DATA SOURCES: The search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Scopus, CINAHL and EconLit. No restrictions were made concerning language, year of publication or publication type. The bibliographies of the included studies were searched for any studies not captured in the literature search.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: To be included, a study must be: (1) based on a randomised controlled trial comparing implementation strategies, (2) the guideline must concern treatment of low back pain in primary care and (3) the economic evaluation should contain primary data on cost and cost-effectiveness.RESULTS: The title and abstract were assessed for 308 studies; of these, three studies were found eligible for inclusion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list showed that the 3 studies were of moderate methodological quality while application of Welte's model showed that cost results from two studies could, with adjustments, be transferred to a Danish setting. It was questionable whether the associated effects could be transferred.CONCLUSIONS: Despite the resemblance of the implementation strategies, the 3 studies report conflicting results on cost-effectiveness. This review showed that transferring the results from the identified studies is not straightforward and underlines the importance of transparent reporting. Future research should focus on transferability of effects, for example, development of a supplement to Welte's model.

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011042

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011042

M3 - Review article

VL - 6

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 6

M1 - e011042

ER -