Scholarlink

Background <p>With the increasing use of the term “impact evaluation” in healthcare and the absence of an exhaustive review on this general theme, this research aims to map available evidence and methods associated with impact evaluations in healthcare by conducting a scoping review.</p> Methods <p>This exhaustive review included peer-reviewed studies of healthcare interventions with no restrictions on language or time of publication.</p> Results <p>In total, 324 studies met the inclusion criteria from 4372 single registries retrieved from Medline, Embase, Scopus, WoS and Econlit in August 2024, with no time restriction. Only ex-post studies were identified; as expected from guidelines, most studies used counterfactuals (58%) and only 7% did not use any comparison. Furthermore, natural experiments or quasi-experiments were the most applied designs (37%), followed by observational (26%) and experimental (17%) designs.</p> Conclusions <p>Impact evaluations of healthcare interventions seem to be predominantly associated with methods of strong comparison (counterfactuals) designs as seen in guidelines; however, there are exceptions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Measuring impacts: a scoping review of healthcare impact evaluations

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月11日

查看全文
  • L. R. Correia,
  • J. C. Martins,
  • E. T. Rother,
  • P. C. de Soárez

摘要

Background

With the increasing use of the term “impact evaluation” in healthcare and the absence of an exhaustive review on this general theme, this research aims to map available evidence and methods associated with impact evaluations in healthcare by conducting a scoping review.

Methods

This exhaustive review included peer-reviewed studies of healthcare interventions with no restrictions on language or time of publication.

Results

In total, 324 studies met the inclusion criteria from 4372 single registries retrieved from Medline, Embase, Scopus, WoS and Econlit in August 2024, with no time restriction. Only ex-post studies were identified; as expected from guidelines, most studies used counterfactuals (58%) and only 7% did not use any comparison. Furthermore, natural experiments or quasi-experiments were the most applied designs (37%), followed by observational (26%) and experimental (17%) designs.

Conclusions

Impact evaluations of healthcare interventions seem to be predominantly associated with methods of strong comparison (counterfactuals) designs as seen in guidelines; however, there are exceptions.