Undetermined impact of patient decision support interventions on healthcare costs and savings: systematic review

Objective To perform a systematic review of studies that assessed the potential of patient decision support interventions (decision aids) to generate savings. Design Systematic review. Data sources After registration with PROSPERO, we searched 12 databases, from inception to 15 March 2013, using relevant MeSH terms and text words. Included studies were assessed with Cochrane’s risk of bias method and Drummond’s quality checklist for economic studies. Per patient costs and projected savings associated with introducing patient decision support interventions were calculated, as well as absolute changes in treatment rates after implementation. Eligibility criteria Studies were included if they contained quantitative economic data, including savings, spending, costs, cost effectiveness analysis, cost benefit analysis, or resource utilization. We excluded studies that lacked quantitative data on savings, costs, monetary value, and/or resource utilization. Results After reviewing 1508 citations, we included seven studies with eight analyses. Of these seven studies, four analyses predicted system-wide savings, with two analyses from the same study. The predicted savings range from $8 (£5, €6) to $3068 (£1868, €2243) per patient. Larger savings accompanied reductions in treatment utilization rates. The impact on utilization rates was mixed. Authors used heterogeneous methods to allocate costs and calculate savings. Quality scores were low to moderate (median 4.5, range 0-8 out of 10), and risk of bias across the studies was moderate to high (3.5, range 3-6 out of 6), with studies predicting the most savings having the highest risk of bias. The range of issues identified in the studies included the relative absence of sensitivity analyses, the absence of incremental cost effectiveness ratios, and short time periods. Conclusion Although there is evidence to show that patients choose more conservative approaches when they become better informed, there is insufficient evidence, as yet, to be confident that the implementation of patient decision support interventions leads to system-wide savings. Further work—with sensitivity analyses, longer time horizons, and more contexts—is required to avoid premature or unrealistic expectations that could jeopardize implementation and lead to the loss of already proved benefits. Registration PROSPERO registration CRD42012003421.

[1]  Anna Tosteson,et al.  Surgical Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Four-Year Results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial , 2010, Spine.

[2]  D. Wennberg,et al.  Enhanced support for shared decision making reduced costs of care for patients with preference-sensitive conditions. , 2013, Health affairs.

[3]  G. Elwyn,et al.  The ethical imperative for shared decision-making , 2013 .

[4]  Carolyn Rutter,et al.  Introducing decision aids at Group Health was linked to sharply lower hip and knee surgery rates and costs. , 2012, Health affairs.

[5]  A Coulter,et al.  Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  S. Wilson Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[7]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[8]  E. Emanuel,et al.  Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  M. Drummond,et al.  Incorporating economics evidence , 2008 .

[10]  E H Wagner,et al.  The Effect of a Shared Decisionmaking Program on Rates of Surgery for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Pilot Results , 1995, Medical Care.

[11]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[12]  Dominick L Frosch,et al.  Internet patient decision support: a randomized controlled trial comparing alternative approaches for men considering prostate cancer screening. , 2008, Archives of internal medicine.

[13]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  A Coulter,et al.  Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on hormone replacement therapy in primary care , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  Mark J Sculpher,et al.  Effects of decision aids for menorrhagia on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs: a randomized controlled trial. , 2002, JAMA.

[16]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  “Many miles to go …”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice , 2013, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[17]  T. Packer,et al.  Preclinic group education sessions reduce waiting times and costs at public pain medicine units. , 2011, Pain medicine.

[18]  Arnold Milstein,et al.  A systemic approach to containing health care spending. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  D. Altman,et al.  Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies , 2008 .

[20]  R. Hurskainen,et al.  A randomized trial among women with heavy menstruation – impact of a decision aid on treatment outcomes and costs , 2004, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[21]  Resource effects of training general practitioners in risk communication skills and shared decision making competences. , 2004, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[22]  Jan Kremer,et al.  The effect of a multifaceted empowerment strategy on decision making about the number of embryos transferred in in vitro fertilisation: randomised controlled trial , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  D. Wennberg,et al.  A randomized trial of a telephone care-management strategy. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  George Tomlinson,et al.  Randomized, controlled trial of an interactive videodisc decision aid for patients with ischemic heart disease , 2000, Journal of General Internal Medicine.