Journal article
Economic evaluation and cost of interventions for cerebral palsy: a systematic review
STF Shih, U Tonmukayakul, C Imms, D Reddihough, HK Graham, L Cox, R Carter
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology | WILEY | Published : 2018
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.13653
Abstract
Aim: Economic appraisal can help guide policy-making for purchasing decisions, and treatment and management algorithms for health interventions. We conducted a systematic review of economic studies in cerebral palsy (CP) to inform future research. Method: Economic studies published since 1970 were identified from seven databases. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Results: Of 980 identified references, 115 were included for full-text assessment. Thirteen articles met standard criteria for a full economic evaluation..
View full abstractGrants
Funding Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the comments and feedback on our work from the members of the project consultation group: Professor Dinah Reddihough, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne; Professor H Kerr Graham, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne; Professor Christine Imms, Australian Catholic University; Professor Nadia Badawi, Cerebral Palsy Alliance; Dr Elise Davis, University of Melbourne; Professor Eve Blair, University of Western Australia; Professor Iona Novak, Cerebral Palsy Alliance; Dr Sarah McIntyre, Cerebral Palsy Alliance; Dr Helen Bourke-Taylor, Monash University; Professor Euan Wallace, Monash University; Professor Michael Fahey, Monash University. We thank the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority and Centre of Research Excellence in Cerebral Palsy for funding support for this systematic review. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority. The authors have stated that they had no interests that might be perceived as posing a conflict or bias.