Search

Background. The misallocation of scarce healthcare resources globally raises concerns regarding the underuse of high‐value care and the overuse of low‐value care. Economic evaluations can help policy makers determine whether an intervention presents a better value for money and desirable clinical benefits, thus realizing value‐based care. Aim. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic evaluations of clinical nursing practices to advance knowledge on value‐based care. Methods. A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Tufts CEA Registry for full economic evaluations of clinical nursing practices from January 2013 to January 2023. Outcomes were incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios, incremental cost‐utility ratios, incremental cost‐benefit ratios, incremental net benefit, and the differences in costs for cost‐minimization studies. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria–extended checklist. Results were synthesized using permutation matrices for all studies. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023415918). Results. Thirty‐five studies were included in this review, with 27 studies categorized as good methodological quality and 8 as moderate quality. Clinical nursing practices were dominant (i.e., more effective and less costly) in 19 studies, potentially cost‐effective depending on willingness‐to‐pay thresholds in 15 studies, and were dominated (i.e., less effective and more costly) in 1 study. Conclusion. Our study advanced knowledge on value‐based care for clinical nursing practices. Results suggest that most clinical nursing practices studied may be clearly economically favourable or potentially favourable. Implications for Nursing Management. The results of this review provide valuable insights into value‐based care in nursing and facilitate the decision‐making of healthcare policymakers regarding health resource allocation to achieve value‐based care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Although increasing evidence reveals the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and its safety on Tourette Syndrome (TS) patients, whether TCM is indeed improving TS remains unclear. The purpose of the current study is to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM on treating TS patients. Method. An elaborate search strategy was conducted based on several databases including Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CINAHL, CBM, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang Data in order to identify the relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to as late as May 1st, 2020. General information and data needing analysis were extracted simultaneously for the necessity of various analyses such as descriptive analysis and metaquantitative analysis. Results. Forty-seven trials with 5437 TS patients in total were eventually included according to our criteria. All trials were conducted in China, and the publication years ranged from 2004 to 2017. In terms of clinical efficacy, clinical symptoms of patients with TCM were more likely to be improved compared with the control group (odds ratio, OR = − 1.29 , 95% confidence interval, CI: -2.54 to -0.06, I 2 = 0.00 %). As to the outcome of recurrence rate, the pooled results revealed that the TCM group was more inclined to stabilize the recurrence (OR = 0.44 , 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.78, I 2 = 0.00 %). Similar results were observed in adverse reaction (OR = 0.32 , 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.43, I 2 = 32.90 %). Conclusion. The results of our study recommend applying TCM to treat TS patients for better efficacy and safety. Results need to be interpreted cautiously due to certain limitations in our study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]