The costs, health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis: A systematic review
Michelle Cunich,Michelle Barakat-Johnson,Michelle Lai,Sheena Arora,Jody Church,Shifa Basjarahil,Jayne L Campbell,Gary Disher,Samara Geering,Natalie Ko,Catherine Leahy,Thomas Leong,Eve McClure,Melissa O'Grady,Joan Walsh,Kate White,Fiona Coyer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104216
Abstract:Background: Incontinence-associated dermatitis is a common, under-recognized painful skin condition associated with poorer quality of life, increased nurse workloads, and costs. Objective: To systematically review economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis. Design: Systematic review of quantitative research. Data sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, Econlit, Tufts' Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and Web of Science. Review methods: A comprehensive search for studies on resource use (costs), health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for incontinence-associated dermatitis was conducted. Screening, data extraction, and initial quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers, with disagreements/queries regarding quality settled through consensus with the larger team. Quality evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and results narratively arranged. Findings: Seventeen studies (10 for prevention, one for treatment and six for both prevention and treatment) included. All studies measured resource use from a healthcare provider perspective; 14 quantified resources in monetary terms. Considerable variation existed in the resource use data primarily due to differences in the type of resources counted, selected time horizons, valuation methods, and reporting approaches. Ten studies provided evidence of their intervention to be cost saving (or at least cost avoiding). Five studies on barrier products provided evidence to be cost saving: three for prevention, one for treatment, and one for both prevention and treatment. Two studies of cleanser and barrier products provided evidence to be cost saving for the prevention and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis. One study found a cleanser to be a cost saving preventative intervention. One bowel management system was found to be cost saving over time only, and one nurse education intervention was found to be cost saving for preventing and treating incontinence-associated dermatitis. One barrier product was found to be cost-effective for preventing and treating the condition. Finally, one study found a cleanser and barrier product was time saving for prevention. None of the studies incorporated a multi-attribute quality of life measure; however, two studies included person-reported outcome measures for pain. A narrow range of resources (mainly products) were considered, and there was limited information on how they were counted and valued. Analyses relating to heterogeneity among patients/hospital wards or health facilities and uncertainty were lacking. Conclusions: Barrier products are possibly a more cost-effective treatment than others; however, this evidence lacks certainty. Structured health economic evaluations are required for a reliable evidence-base on the interventions for incontinence-associated dermatitis. Tweetable abstract: Most incontinence-associated dermatitis studies lack person-reported outcomes, costs beyond product/staff time, and economic evaluation.