0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development of an admission criterion framework for high-cost medical consumables in governmental hospitals: a systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          High-cost medical consumables (HMCs) have emerged as significant economic and technological challenges for numerous national healthcare systems. Governmental hospitals play an indispensable role in many national health systems, closely linked to the evaluation of admissions and the management of procurement for HMCs. Nevertheless, many governmental hospitals face avoidable management risks due to the lack of a decision-making tool. In response, we conducted a systematic review to establishing a framework for the admission criteria of HMCs. This framework aims to enhance their effective utilization and maximize economic, clinical, and social benefits.

          Methods

          In accordance with a systematic review protocol developed for our study, we conducted comprehensive searches in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases to identify all correlation studies conducted prior to December 31, 2021. Subsequently, two independent reviewers performed a two-round screening process, resulting in the inclusion of 23 articles in our study. Finally, a third reviewer meticulously examined the selected indicators and contributed to the development of the final criterion framework.

          Results

          The criterion framework was established with 7 first-level indicators and 23 s-level indicators. Among the first-level indicators, "Clinical Benefit" held the highest significance, with a combined weight of 1.606, followed by "Economic Value" and "Organizational Impact" at 1.497 and 1.159, respectively. At the second level, "Safety" and "Efficacy" carried equal weight in the decision-making tool, with combined weights of approximately 1.300 each and a standard combined weight of 0.130.

          Conclusion

          This admission criteria framework serves as a vital decision-making tool for managing admissions and highlights several crucial evaluation indicators. Economic considerations emerge as the principal determinant in HMCs procurement decisions. Consequently, healthcare managers and decision-makers are recommended to give precedence to value-based healthcare and evidence-based procurement practices. In the long term, governmental hospitals must grapple with the challenge of judiciously allocating limited resources to maximize both social and economic benefits.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

            The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research.

              To inform evidence-based practice in health care, guidelines and policies require accurate identification, collation, and integration of all available evidence in a comprehensive, meaningful, and time-efficient manner. Approaches to evidence synthesis such as carefully conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential tools to summarize specific topics. Unfortunately, not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, and their quality can vary substantially. Since well-conducted evidence synthesis typically involves a complex set of steps, we believe formulating a cohesive, step-by-step guide on how to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis is essential. While most of the guidelines on systematic reviews focus on how to report or appraise systematic reviews, they lack guidance on how to synthesize evidence efficiently. To facilitate the design and development of evidence syntheses, we provide a clear and concise, 24-step guide on how to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and clinical trials. We describe each step, illustrate it with concrete examples, and provide relevant references for further guidance. The 24-step guide (1) simplifies the methodology of conducting a systematic review, (2) provides healthcare professionals and researchers with methodologically sound tools for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and (3) it can enhance the quality of existing evidence synthesis efforts. This guide will help its readers to better understand the complexity of the process, appraise the quality of published systematic reviews, and better comprehend (and use) evidence from medical literature.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                wanghaiyin@shdrc.org
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                29 July 2024
                29 July 2024
                2024
                : 24
                : 858
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Public Health, Fudan University, ( https://ror.org/013q1eq08) Shanghai, China
                [2 ]China Pharmaceutical University, ( https://ror.org/01sfm2718) Nanjing, China
                [3 ]GRID grid.508184.0, ISNI 0000 0004 1758 2262, Shanghai Health Development Research Center (Shanghai Medical Information Center), ; Shanghai, China
                [4 ]GRID grid.8547.e, ISNI 0000 0001 0125 2443, National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment (Fudan University), ; Shanghai, China
                Article
                11318
                10.1186/s12913-024-11318-z
                11285435
                39075497
                c7743271-4178-4d70-b189-03027dd9304d
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 11 October 2023
                : 15 July 2024
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Health & Social care
                high-cost medical consumables,governmental hospital,admission criterion,purchasing management,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article