Cost-effectiveness of interventions for treating anxiety disorders: A systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 210 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robbin H. Ophuis ◽  
Joran Lokkerbol ◽  
Stella C.M. Heemskerk ◽  
Anton J.L.M. van Balkom ◽  
Mickaël Hiligsmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Anxiety Disorders

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 Plant-Derived Natural Compounds for Anxiety Disorders

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (17) ◽  
pp. 1924-1942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Hosein Farzaei ◽  
Roodabeh Bahramsoltani ◽  
Roja Rahimi ◽  
Faezeh Abbasabadi ◽  
Mohammad Abdollahi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anxiety Disorders ◽  
Natural Compounds

scholarly journals Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in melanoma clinical quality registries: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e040751
Author(s):  
Zachary Blood ◽  
Anh Tran ◽  
Lauren Caleo ◽  
Robyn Saw ◽  
Mbathio Dieng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Cutaneous Melanoma ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Clinical Quality ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Eortc Qlq

ObjectivesTo identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in clinical quality registries, for people with cutaneous melanoma, to inform a new Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry; and describe opportunities and challenges of routine PROM/PREM collection, especially in primary care.DesignSystematic review.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWhich PROMs and PREMs are used in clinical quality registries for people with cutaneous melanoma, how they are collected, frequency of collection, participant recruitment methods and funding models for each registry.Results1134 studies were identified from MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases and TUFTS Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, alongside grey literature, from database inception to 5th February 2020. Following screening, 14 studies were included, identifying four relevant registries: Dutch Melanoma Registry, Adelphi Real-World Disease-Specific Programme (Melanoma), Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship Registry, and Cancer Experience Registry. These used seven PROMs: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) and FACT-Melanoma (FACT-M), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Fatigue Assessment Scale Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-29 and one PREM; EORTC QLQ-Information Module 26. PROMs/PREMs in registries were reported to improve transparency of care; facilitate clinical auditing for quality assessment; enable cost-effectiveness analyses and create large-scale research platforms. Challenges included resource burden for data entry and potential collection bias toward younger, more affluent respondents. Feedback from patients with melanoma highlighted the relevance of PROMs/PREMs in assessing patient outcomes and patient experiences.ConclusionsClinical registries indicate PROMs/PREMs for melanoma care can be incorporated and address important gaps, however cost and collection bias may limit generalisability.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018086737.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document