Quality of reporting of economic evaluations in rehabilitation research: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

The quality of reporting of health economic evaluations for rehabilitation services has been questioned, limiting the ability to provide accurate recommendations for health decisions.

Purpose

To document current overall reporting quality of the published literature for economic evaluations of rehabilitation services using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and to identify factors that could influence the quality of reporting.

Data sources

Electronic literature searches were performed using MEDLINE and the NHS Economic Evaluations Database via the Cochrane Library.

Study selection

Prospective rehabilitation economic evaluation articles from 2013 to 2020 were selected.

Data extraction

Data were extracted by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer.

Data synthesis/results

Title and abstracts of 3,454 papers were reviewed. 204 papers were selected for a full text screening. From those, 129 potential papers were identified to be included in this study.

Limitations

Only two databases were used in data collection, and papers were selected from 2013 to 2020 only.

Conclusions

Inconsistent reporting in health economic evaluations of rehabilitation services has continued, despite the availability of the CHEERS checklist. The methods of the analyzed studies were frequently under-reported, thereby creating challenges in determining whether the results reported were valid.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

• Variable quality of reporting has been identified in rehabilitation research assessing cost-effectiveness.

• To grow as an area of expertise, the field of rehabilitation must produce research demonstrating its cost-effectiveness.

• Both rehabilitation clinicians and funders would benefit from full and transparent information to identify optimal solutions for effective and efficient care.

Keywords:

• Economic evaluation
• rehabilitation
• physical therapy
• occupational therapy
• systematic review

Author contributions

Ms Flemming and Dr. Armijo-Olivo provided concept/idea/research design and writing. Dr. Paulden provided feedback for concept/idea/research design and feedback on the methodology for extracting data. Ms Chojecki and Ms Tjosvold performed literature searches. Ms Flemming, and Dr. Armijo-Olivo provided data collection including data screening, data extraction, and assessing the quality of reporting using the CHEERS guidelines. Ms Flemming and Dr. Armijo-Olivo provided data analysis. All authors critically revised the manuscript and provided final approval of the version to be published.

Disclosure statement

Julie Flemming OT is employed with Alberta Health Services. Dr. Susan Armijo-Olivo was supported by the Institute of Health Economics. The funding bodies had no input in the design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.