Cost-of-illness studies and cost-effectiveness analyses in eating disorders: A systematic review

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 476-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Stuhldreher ◽  
Alexander Konnopka ◽  
Beate Wild ◽  
Wolfgang Herzog ◽  
Stephan Zipfel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Eating Disorders ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Of Illness ◽  
Cost Of Illness Studies

Cost-of-illness studies and cost-effectiveness analyses in anxiety disorders: A systematic review

2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 14-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Konnopka ◽  
Falk Leichsenring ◽  
Eric Leibing ◽  
Hans-Helmut König
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Anxiety Disorders ◽  
Cost Of Illness ◽  
Cost Of Illness Studies

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of prevention and treatment for eating disorders

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 328-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Long Khanh-Dao Le ◽  
Phillipa Hay ◽  
Cathrine Mihalopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Eating Disorders ◽  
Anorexia Nervosa ◽  
Eating Disorder ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Bulimia Nervosa ◽  
Binge Eating Disorder ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Prevention And Treatment ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

Background: Eating disorders are serious mental disorders and are associated with substantial economic and social burden. The aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness studies of both preventive and treatment interventions for eating disorder. Method: Electronic databases (including the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Global Health, CINAHL complete, Health Business Elite, Econlit, Health Policy Reference Center and ERIC) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of eating disorder prevention and treatment including papers published up to January 2017. The quality of studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Results: In all, 13 studies met the review inclusion criteria as full cost-effectiveness studies and 8 were published since 2011. The studies included three modelled and one trial-based study focused on prevention, two trial-based and one modelled study for anorexia nervosa treatment and three trial-based studies for bulimia nervosa treatment. The remaining studies targeted binge-eating disorder or non-specific eating disorder treatment. The average percent of CHEERS checklist items reported was 71% (standard deviation 21%). Eating disorder interventions were mainly cost-saving or more effective and more costly compared to comparators; however, some results did not reach statistical significance. In the two studies that achieved 100% CHEERS checklist, one study reported that a cognitive dissonance intervention might be cost-effective for prevention of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa with a 90% participation rate and the second study supported lisdexamfetamine to be cost-effective in the treatment of binge-eating disorder. Insufficient evidence for long-term cost-effectiveness (e.g. over 2 years) was found. Conclusion: Cost-effectiveness studies in eating disorder appear to be increasing in number over the last 6 years. Findings were inconsistent and no firm conclusion can be drawn with regard to comparative value-for-money conclusions. However, some promising interventions were identified. Further research with improved methodology is required.

Cost-of-illness studies of dementia: a systematic review focusing on stage dependency of costs

2010 ◽  
Vol 121 (4) ◽  
pp. 243-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Quentin ◽  
S. G. Riedel-Heller ◽  
M. Luppa ◽  
A. Rudolph ◽  
H.-H. König
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Of Illness ◽  
Cost Of Illness Studies

PMH1 COST-OF-ILLNESS STUDIES FOR DEPRESSION AND BIPOLAR DISORDER IN LATIN AMERICA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. S49
Author(s):  
D. Parra Padilla ◽  
B. Diaz Arrieta ◽  
I. Acevedo ◽  
J. Montero Mestre ◽  
F.E. Salcedo Mejía ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bipolar Disorder ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Cost Of Illness ◽  
Cost Of Illness Studies

scholarly journals Economics of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 204201881982821 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Grande ◽  
Ángel Díaz ◽  
Carlos López ◽  
Javier Munarriz ◽  
Juan-José Reina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Resource Utilization ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Cost Of Illness ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Evaluations

Background: Despite current interest, enthusiasm and progress in the development of therapies for gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), there are substantial gaps in the published literature regarding cost-of-illness analyses, economic evaluation and budget impact analyses. Compounding the issue is that data on resource utilization and cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for GEP-NETs are scarce. Methods: A systematic review on the economic impact of GEP-NETs was carried out using four databases: EMBASE, PubMed, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Cochrane review. Fully published articles from January 2000 to May 2017, in English and Spanish, were included. All articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included in the systematic review; summary descriptive statistics were used to describe the methodological characteristics. Results: The 14 studies selected included cost-of-illness analyses ( n = 4), economic evaluations ( n = 7) and budget impact analyses ( n = 3). Almost all studies were performed in the United States. Healthcare costs for patients with NETs included medication, outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and check-ups/tests. Reducing adverse events is an area where cost savings could be achieved; however, there was not enough evidence on the cost impact of adverse events. Conclusion: There is a lack of data related to resource utilization in the field of GEP-NETs. Therefore, cost-effectiveness and budget impact studies of existing and emerging treatments are urgently needed to help the decision-making process for patients with NETs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document