Background: Patient-centered care has become increasingly important and relevant for informed health care decision making.
Objective: Our study aimed to perform a systematic review of health economic evaluation studies from the patient's perspective.
Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases were searched through May 2014 for cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit studies using the patient's perspective in their analysis. The reporting quality of the studies was evaluated on the basis of Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.
Results: We identified 30 health economic evaluations using the patient's perspective, of which 7 were conducted in the United States, 9 in Europe, and 14 in Asian or other countries. Seventeen of 23 health conditions evaluated were chronic in nature. Among 12 studies that justified the use of the patient's perspective, patient's financial burden associated with medical treatment was the most commonly cited rationale. A total of 29, 17, and 15 studies examined direct medical, direct nonmedical, and indirect costs, respectively. Seventeen studies also included societal, governmental or payer's, and/or provider's perspective(s) in their analyses. Based on Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, more than 20% of the reporting items in these studies were either partially satisfied or not satisfied.
Conclusions: There is a paucity of health economic evaluations conducted from the patient's perspective in the literature. For those studies using the patient's perspective, the true patient costs were not fully explored and study reporting quality was not optimal. With the increasing focus on patient-centered outcomes in health policy research, more frequent use of the patient's perspective in economic studies should be advocated.
Keywords: cost-benefit analysis; cost-effectiveness analysis; cost-utility analysis; patient’s perspective; systematic review.
Copyright © 2016 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.