Published in

BMJ Publishing Group, BMJ Open, 9(9), p. e025736, 2019

DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025736

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Effect of deinstitutionalisation for adults with intellectual disabilities on costs: a systematic review

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

ObjectiveTo review systematically the evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of deinstitutionalisation for adults with intellectual disabilities.DesignSystematic review.PopulationAdults (aged 18 years and over) with intellectual disabilities.InterventionDeinstitutionalisation, that is, the move from institutional to community settings.Primary and secondary outcome measuresStudies were eligible if evaluating within any cost-consequence framework (eg, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost–utility analysis) or resource use typically considered to fall within the societal viewpoint (eg, cost to payers, service-users, families and informal care costs).SearchWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EconLit, Embase and Scopus to September 2017 and supplemented this with grey literature searches and handsearching of the references of the eligible studies. We assessed study quality using the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme suite of tools, excluding those judged to be of poor methodological quality.ResultsTwo studies were included; both were cohort studies from the payer perspective of people leaving long-stay National Health Service hospitals in the UK between 1984 and 1992. One study found that deinstitutionalisation reduced costs, one study found an increase in costs.ConclusionA wide-ranging literature review found limited evidence on costs associated with deinstitutionalisation for people with intellectual disabilities. From two studies included in the review, the results were conflicting. Significant gaps in the evidence base were observable, particularly with respect to priority populations in contemporary policy: older people with intellectual disabilities and serious medical illness, and younger people with very complex needs and challenging behaviours.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018077406