TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-Effectiveness of Physical Rehabilitation and Care of Older Home-Dwelling Persons After Hip Fracture
T2 - a Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis
AU - Ipsen, Jonas Ammundsen
AU - Pedersen, Lars T
AU - Draborg, Eva
AU - Bruun, Inge H
AU - Abrahamsen, Charlotte
AU - Viberg, Bjarke
PY - 2022/11/24
Y1 - 2022/11/24
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic review of the literature and knowledge base of cost per quality-adjusted life year of physical rehabilitation and care of older persons after hip fracture. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A research librarian assisted in searching 9 databases (14 May to 27 May 2021), with exclusion of studies on cognitively impaired or institutionalized individuals. A stepwise selection process was conducted by 2 authors, study quality was assessed using Drummond et al.'s checklist, and comparison between different countries was assessed using Welte et al.'s checklist. RESULTS: Three studies were included, which employed 3 different interventions initiated at 3 different postoperative time-points. One high-quality study demonstrated that comprehensive geriatric assessment was cost-effective compared with coordinated care. The other 2 studies did not find the interventions studied to be cost-effective, and both studies were deemed to be of moderate quality. CONCLUSION: The body of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of physical rehabilitation and care after hip fracture is limited and heterogeneous, with only 1 high-quality study. Thus, stakeholders perform decision-making with a limited knowledge base of the cost-effectiveness of physical rehabilitation and care. We recommend researchers to assess cost-per-QALY.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic review of the literature and knowledge base of cost per quality-adjusted life year of physical rehabilitation and care of older persons after hip fracture. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A research librarian assisted in searching 9 databases (14 May to 27 May 2021), with exclusion of studies on cognitively impaired or institutionalized individuals. A stepwise selection process was conducted by 2 authors, study quality was assessed using Drummond et al.'s checklist, and comparison between different countries was assessed using Welte et al.'s checklist. RESULTS: Three studies were included, which employed 3 different interventions initiated at 3 different postoperative time-points. One high-quality study demonstrated that comprehensive geriatric assessment was cost-effective compared with coordinated care. The other 2 studies did not find the interventions studied to be cost-effective, and both studies were deemed to be of moderate quality. CONCLUSION: The body of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of physical rehabilitation and care after hip fracture is limited and heterogeneous, with only 1 high-quality study. Thus, stakeholders perform decision-making with a limited knowledge base of the cost-effectiveness of physical rehabilitation and care. We recommend researchers to assess cost-per-QALY.
KW - Aged
KW - Aged, 80 and over
KW - Cost-Benefit Analysis
KW - Geriatric Assessment
KW - Hip Fractures/surgery
KW - Humans
KW - Quality of Life
KW - Quality-Adjusted Life Years
U2 - 10.2340/jrm.v54.3421
DO - 10.2340/jrm.v54.3421
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 36314360
VL - 54
JO - Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
JF - Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
SN - 1650-1977
M1 - jrm00351
ER -