Artikel
Insurance medicine in the Cochrane Library: facilitating access to Cochrane reviews relevant for insurance medicine professionals
Suche in Medline nach
Autoren
-
Adrian Verbel
- University Hospital Basel, Evidence-based Insurance Medicine, Department of Clinical Research, Basel, Schweiz
-
Regina Kunz
- University Hospital Basel, Evidence-based Insurance Medicine, Department of Clinical Research, Basel, Schweiz
-
Brigitte Walter Meyer
- University Hospital Basel, Evidence-based Insurance Medicine, Department of Clinical Research, Basel, Schweiz
-
Sacha Röschard
- University Hospital Basel, Evidence-based Insurance Medicine, Department of Clinical Research, Basel, Schweiz
-
Rebecca Weida
- University Hospital Basel, Evidence-based Insurance Medicine, Department of Clinical Research, Basel, Schweiz
| Veröffentlicht: | 12. Februar 2020 |
|---|
Gliederung
Text
Background/research question: A broad range of health-related disciplines produce scientific evidence relevant for insurance medicine (IM), making it scattered and difficult to compile, search and access. In 2016, the Cochrane Insurance Medicine field (CIM) conducted a survey, showing that 75% of the IM professionals searching the Cochrane Library did not find the evidence they were looking for. To facilitate the search and access to Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs), CIM screened the Cochrane Library compiling SRs relevant for IM. This led to the creation of a separate topic “Insurance Medicine” in the Cochrane Library in 2019. This presentation describes the topic “Insurance Medicine”, the screening process for SRs, the characteristics of the evidence found and suggests next steps to foster the access to IM evidence.
Methods: CIM defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and the process for screening of SRs in the Cochrane Library. We determined a list of main outcomes relevant for IM (e.g. return to work, sick leave, work disability, participation and cost) and related surrogate outcomes (e.g. loss of employment, length of hospitalisation, work capacity, etc.). The SRs including main or surrogate IM outcomes as a primary or secondary outcome in their methods section were selected and classified according to the type of IM outcome.
Results: CIM identified 347 Cochrane reviews with outcomes relevant to IM (main or surrogate) in their methods section. Outcomes most frequently identified were sick leave, return to work and cost. From a sample of 84 SRs, main IM outcomes were included in 12 SRs and mostly as secondary outcomes (n=10). The remaining SRs were surrogate outcomes (n=80). From those, 69 were considered as secondary outcomes.
Conclusion: The compilation and classification of Cochrane SRs according to IM relevant outcomes can facilitate the search and access to evidence among insurance medicine professionals. However, the availability of Cochrane evidence relevant for IM seems to be rather scarce and mainly limited to surrogate and secondary outcomes. Future steps for fostering the production and access to SRs relevant to IM should consider the need to advocate for the inclusion of main IM outcomes in Cochrane research protocols. Also, the availability of non-Cochrane SRs relevant to IM should be explore.
Competing interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
