Social determinants of health and disparities in pediatric trauma care: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDH), including "the conditions in which individuals are born, grow, work, live and age" affect child health and well-being. Several studies have synthesized evidence about the influence of SDH on childhood injury risks and outcomes. However, there is no systematic evidence about the impact of SDH on accessing care and quality of care once a child has suffered an injury. We aim to evaluate the extent to which access to care and quality of care after injury are affected by children and adolescents' SDH. METHODS: Using Cochrane methodology, we will conduct a systematic review including observational and experimental studies evaluating the association between social/material elements contributing to health disparities, using the PROGRESS-Plus framework: place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital and care received by children and adolescents (≤ 19 years of age) after injury. We will consult published literature using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Academic Search Premier and grey literature using Google Scholar from their inception to a maximum of 6 months prior to submission for publication. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment for included studies. The risk of bias will be assessed using the ROBINS-E and ROB-2 tools respectively for observational and experimental study designs. We will analyze data to perform narrative syntheses, and if enough studies are identified, we will conduct a meta-analysis using random effects models. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide a synthesis of evidence on the association between SDH and pediatric trauma care (access to care and quality of care) that clinicians and policymakers can use to better tailor care systems and promote equitable access and quality of care for all children. We will share our findings through clinical rounds, conferences, and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023408467.

Economic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions to improve compliance to healthcare guidelines is supported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs. However, there is currently a knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess whether A&F interventions targeting improvements in compliance to recommended care are economically favourable. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review including experimental, observational and simulation-based economic evaluation studies of A&F interventions targeting healthcare providers. Comparators were a 'do nothing' strategy, or any other intervention not involving A&F or involving a subset of A&F intervention components. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, ABI/INFORM, Web of Science, ProQuest and websites of healthcare quality associations to December 2021. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net benefit and incremental cost-benefit ratios. Pairs of reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted relevant data. Reporting quality was evaluated using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards). Results were synthesised using permutation matrices for all studies and predefined subgroups. RESULTS: Of 13 221 unique citations, 35 studies met our inclusion criteria. The A&F intervention was dominant (ie, at least as effective with lower cost) in 7 studies, potentially cost-effective in 26 and was dominated (ie, the same or less effectiveness and higher costs) in 2 studies. A&F interventions were more likely to be economically favourable in studies based on health outcomes rather than compliance to recommended practice, considering medical costs in addition to intervention costs, published since 2010, and with high reporting quality. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that A&F interventions may have a high potential to be cost-effective. However, as is common in systematic reviews of economic evaluations, publication bias could have led to an overestimation of their economic value.

Economic Evaluation of In-Hospital Clinical Practices in Acute Injury Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Underuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. To achieve value-based care, guidelines and recommendations should target both underuse and overuse and be supported by evidence from economic evaluations. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the economic value of in-hospital clinical practices in acute injury care to advance knowledge on value-based care in this patient population. METHODS: Pairs of independent reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for full economic evaluations of in-hospital clinical practices in acute trauma care published from 2009 to 2019 (last updated on June 17, 2020). Results were converted into incremental net monetary benefit and were summarized with forest plots. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020164494). RESULTS: Of 33 910 unique citations, 75 studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified 62 cost-utility, 8 cost-effectiveness, and 5 cost-minimization studies. Values of incremental net monetary benefit ranged from international dollars -467 000 to international dollars 194 000. Of 114 clinical interventions evaluated (vs comparators), 56 were cost-effective. We identified 15 cost-effective interventions in emergency medicine, 6 in critical care medicine, and 35 in orthopedic medicine. A total of 58 studies were classified as high quality and 17 as moderate quality. From studies with a high level of evidence (randomized controlled trials), 4 interventions were clearly dominant and 8 were dominated. CONCLUSIONS: This research advances knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions. Results suggest that almost half of clinical interventions in acute injury care that have been studied may not be cost-effective.

Economic evaluation of intrahospital clinical practices in injury care: protocol for a 10-year systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Underuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. Injuries are second only to cardiovascular disease in terms of acute care costs but data on the economic impact of clinical practices for injury admissions are lacking. This study aims to summarise evidence on the economic value of intrahospital clinical practices for injury care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review to identify research articles in economic evaluation of intrahospital clinical practices in acute injury care. We will search MEDLINE and databases such as Embase, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS and CINAHL for randomised or non-randomised controlled trials and observational studies using a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary. We will consider the following outcomes relative to economic evaluations: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental cost-utility ratio, incremental net health benefit, incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) and incremental cost-benefit ratio. Pairs of independent reviewers will evaluate studies that meet eligibility criteria and extract data from included articles using an electronic data extraction form. All outcomes will be converted into iNMB. We will report iNMB for practices classified by type of practice (hospitalisation, consultation, diagnostic, therapeutic-surgical, therapeutic-drugs, therapeutic-other). Results obtained with a ceiling ratio of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained for identified clinical practices will be summarised by charting forest plots. In line with Cochrane recommendations for systematic reviews of economic evaluations, meta-analyses will not be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as original data will not be collected. This study will summarise existing evidence on the economic value of clinical practices in injury care. Results will be used to advance knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions and will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed article, international scientific meetings and clinical and healthcare quality associations.

Hospital length of stay following admission for traumatic brain injury in a Canadian integrated trauma system: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of disability in children and young adults and costs CAD$3 billion annually in Canada. Stakeholders have expressed the urgent need to obtain information on resource use for TBI to improve the quality and efficiency of acute care in this patient population. We aimed to assess the components and determinants of hospital and ICU LOS for TBI admissions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study on 11,199 adults admitted for TBI between 2007 and 2012 in an inclusive Canadian trauma system. Our primary outcome measure was index hospital LOS (admission to the hospital with the highest designation level). Index LOS was compared to total LOS (all consecutive admissions related to the injury). Expected LOS was calculated by matching TBI admissions to all-diagnosis hospital admissions by age, gender, and year of admission. LOS determinants were identified using multilevel linear regression. RESULTS: Geometric mean total LOS was 1day longer than geometric mean index LOS (12.6 versus 11.7 days). Observed index and ICU LOS were respectively 4.2days and 2.5days longer than that expected according to all-diagnosis admissions. The six most important determinants of LOS were discharge destination, severity of concomitant injuries, extracranial complications, GCS, TBI severity, and mechanical ventilation, accounting for 80% of explained variation. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this multicenter retrospective cohort study suggest that hospital and ICU LOS for TBI admissions are 56% and 119% longer than expected according to all-diagnosis admissions, respectively. In addition, hospital LOS is underestimated when only the index visit is considered and is largely influenced by discharge destination and extracranial complications, suggesting that improvements could be achieved with better discharge planning and interventions targeting prevention of in-hospital complications. This study highlights the importance of considering TBI patients as a distinct population when allocating resources or planning quality improvement interventions.