TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluations of healthcare delivery models in Australia
T2 - a scoping review protocol
AU - Roseleur, Jacqueline
AU - Partington, Andrew
AU - Karnon, Jonathan
PY - 2020/1/1
Y1 - 2020/1/1
N2 - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to identify and describe the evidence base of published primary, comparative healthcare delivery model evaluations that require the employment of additional healthcare practitioners undertaken in Australia. INTRODUCTION: In Australia, formal processes are utilized in assessing the value of new pharmaceuticals and medical services, which inform decisions on whether to list new items on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule and Medicare Benefits Schedule, respectively. There are no formal processes to aid in decision making on the funding of new, evaluated healthcare delivery models. This imbalance undervalues the available evidence on healthcare delivery models, leading to the sub-optimal allocation of resources between new health technologies and new healthcare delivery models within the Australian health system. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible studies will evaluate healthcare delivery models that require the employment of additional healthcare practitioners (either to replace existing practitioners of another type or to provide new services). Studies must include a comparator to evaluate a condition of interest being treated using alternative healthcare delivery models, or no treatment, and will involve observation of outcomes over a similar period of time. Studies in any Australian setting will be included. Interventions aimed at primary preventions will be excluded. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and CINAHL will be searched for articles published from 2008. One reviewer will review titles, and then two reviewers will independently review abstracts to identify eligible studies. One reviewer will extract data on study characteristics and design. The results of the data extraction will be presented in a table with examples of case studies.
AB - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to identify and describe the evidence base of published primary, comparative healthcare delivery model evaluations that require the employment of additional healthcare practitioners undertaken in Australia. INTRODUCTION: In Australia, formal processes are utilized in assessing the value of new pharmaceuticals and medical services, which inform decisions on whether to list new items on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule and Medicare Benefits Schedule, respectively. There are no formal processes to aid in decision making on the funding of new, evaluated healthcare delivery models. This imbalance undervalues the available evidence on healthcare delivery models, leading to the sub-optimal allocation of resources between new health technologies and new healthcare delivery models within the Australian health system. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible studies will evaluate healthcare delivery models that require the employment of additional healthcare practitioners (either to replace existing practitioners of another type or to provide new services). Studies must include a comparator to evaluate a condition of interest being treated using alternative healthcare delivery models, or no treatment, and will involve observation of outcomes over a similar period of time. Studies in any Australian setting will be included. Interventions aimed at primary preventions will be excluded. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and CINAHL will be searched for articles published from 2008. One reviewer will review titles, and then two reviewers will independently review abstracts to identify eligible studies. One reviewer will extract data on study characteristics and design. The results of the data extraction will be presented in a table with examples of case studies.
KW - Australia
KW - decision-making
KW - health services
KW - health workforce
KW - healthcare delivery models
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078394901&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/NHMRC/9100002
U2 - 10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00094
DO - 10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00094
M3 - Article
C2 - 31356574
SN - 2202-4433
VL - 18
SP - 128
EP - 134
JO - JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports
JF - JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports
IS - 1
ER -