Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review.
<h4>Purpose of the study</h4>To systematically review cost, cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness studies for assisted living technologies (ALTs) that specifically enable older people to 'age in place' and highlight what further research is needed to inform decisions regardi...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2014-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/25058505/pdf/?tool=EBI |
| _version_ | 1819319390253875200 |
|---|---|
| author | Erin M Graybill Peter McMeekin John Wildman |
| author_facet | Erin M Graybill Peter McMeekin John Wildman |
| author_sort | Erin M Graybill |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Purpose of the study</h4>To systematically review cost, cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness studies for assisted living technologies (ALTs) that specifically enable older people to 'age in place' and highlight what further research is needed to inform decisions regarding aging in place.<h4>Design</h4>People aged 65+ and their live-in carers (where applicable), using an ALT to age in place at home opposed to a community-dwelling arrangement.<h4>Methods</h4>Studies were identified using a predefined search strategy on two key economic and cost evaluation databases NHS EED, HEED. Studies were assessed using methods recommended by the Campbell and Cochrane Economic Methods Group and presented in a narrative synthesis style.<h4>Results</h4>Eight eligible studies were identified from North America spread over a diverse geographical range. The majority of studies reported the ALT intervention group as having lower resource use costs than the control group; though the low methodological quality and heterogeneity of the individual costs and outcomes reported across studies must be considered.<h4>Implications</h4>The studies suggest that in some cases ALTs may reduce costs, though little data were identified and what there were was of poor quality. Methods to capture quality of life gains were not used, therefore potential effects on health and wellbeing may be missed. Further research is required using newer developments such as the capabilities approach. High quality studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of ALTs for ageing in place are required before robust conclusion on their use can be drawn. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-24T11:02:55Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b65cceabc4df482b86ee74dc2e922439 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-24T11:02:55Z |
| publishDate | 2014-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-b65cceabc4df482b86ee74dc2e9224392022-12-21T16:58:41ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032014-01-0197e10270510.1371/journal.pone.0102705Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review.Erin M GraybillPeter McMeekinJohn Wildman<h4>Purpose of the study</h4>To systematically review cost, cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness studies for assisted living technologies (ALTs) that specifically enable older people to 'age in place' and highlight what further research is needed to inform decisions regarding aging in place.<h4>Design</h4>People aged 65+ and their live-in carers (where applicable), using an ALT to age in place at home opposed to a community-dwelling arrangement.<h4>Methods</h4>Studies were identified using a predefined search strategy on two key economic and cost evaluation databases NHS EED, HEED. Studies were assessed using methods recommended by the Campbell and Cochrane Economic Methods Group and presented in a narrative synthesis style.<h4>Results</h4>Eight eligible studies were identified from North America spread over a diverse geographical range. The majority of studies reported the ALT intervention group as having lower resource use costs than the control group; though the low methodological quality and heterogeneity of the individual costs and outcomes reported across studies must be considered.<h4>Implications</h4>The studies suggest that in some cases ALTs may reduce costs, though little data were identified and what there were was of poor quality. Methods to capture quality of life gains were not used, therefore potential effects on health and wellbeing may be missed. Further research is required using newer developments such as the capabilities approach. High quality studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of ALTs for ageing in place are required before robust conclusion on their use can be drawn.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/25058505/pdf/?tool=EBI |
| spellingShingle | Erin M Graybill Peter McMeekin John Wildman Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review. PLoS ONE |
| title | Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review. |
| title_full | Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review. |
| title_fullStr | Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review. |
| title_short | Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review. |
| title_sort | can aging in place be cost effective a systematic review |
| url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/25058505/pdf/?tool=EBI |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT erinmgraybill canaginginplacebecosteffectiveasystematicreview AT petermcmeekin canaginginplacebecosteffectiveasystematicreview AT johnwildman canaginginplacebecosteffectiveasystematicreview |