背景:慢性病在全世界每年的所有死亡中占很大比例(71%)。世界各国政府和其他利益攸关方已采取各种行动来解决导致慢性病流行和影响的关键风险因素。私人健康保险公司(PHI)是一个关键利益相关者,特别是在澳大利亚的医疗系统中,他们对慢性病预防的参与也在增加。因此,我们调查了PHI在澳大利亚和国际上实施的慢性病预防干预措施的影响.
方法:我们搜索了多个数据库(BusinessSourceComplete,CINAHL,全球卫生,健康商业精英,Medline,PsycINFO,和Scopus)和灰色文献,使用有关PHI提供的慢性疾病预防干预措施的影响的搜索词,以英语发表至2020年9月的研究/报告。两名审稿人使用EffectivePublicHealthcarePanaceaProject开发的质量评估工具评估了偏见的风险。数据提取后,文献是根据各研究报告的干预措施类型进行主题综合的.研究方案在PROSPERO注册,CRD42020145644。
结果:在7789条记录中,29项研究符合纳入条件。PHI实施的干预措施主要有四种类型:财政激励措施,健康教练,健康计划,和团体医疗预约。不同研究的结果指标各不相同,这使得比较不同干预类型的有效性之间的差异具有挑战性。大多数研究报告说,干预措施的影响,比如增加健康饮食,身体活动,住院人数较低,如果干预时间较短,则持续时间较短。
结论:虽然很难断定哪种干预类型最有效,似乎,无论干预类型如何,与持续时间较短的PHI干预相比,持续时间较长(至少2年)的PHI干预更有益,结果更持久。
背景:主要资金来源是吉朗医疗和医院福利协会(GMHBA),澳大利亚私人健康保险公司。
BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases contribute to a significant proportion (71%) of all deaths each year worldwide. Governments and other stakeholders worldwide have taken various actions to tackle the key risk factors contributing to the prevalence and impact of chronic diseases. Private health insurers (PHI) are one key stakeholders, particularly in Australian health system, and their engagement in chronic disease prevention is growing. Therefore, we investigated the impacts of chronic disease prevention interventions implemented by PHI both in Australia and internationally.
METHODS: We searched multiple databases (Business Source Complete, CINAHL, Global Health, Health Business Elite, Medline, PsycINFO, and Scopus) and grey literature for studies/reports published in English until September 2020 using search terms on the impacts of chronic disease prevention interventions delivered by PHIs. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias using a quality assessment tool developed by Effective Public Healthcare Panacea Project. After data extraction, the literature was synthesised thematically based on the types of the interventions reported across studies. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42020145644.
RESULTS: Of 7789 records, 29 studies were eligible for inclusion. There were predominantly four types of interventions implemented by PHIs: Financial incentives, health coaching, wellness programs, and group medical appointments. Outcome measures across studies were varied, making it challenging to compare the difference between the effectiveness of different intervention types. Most studies reported that the impacts of interventions, such as increase in healthy eating, physical activity, and lower hospital admissions, last for a shorter term if the length of the intervention is shorter.
CONCLUSIONS: Although it is challenging to conclude which intervention type was the most effective, it appeared that, regardless of the intervention types, PHI interventions of longer duration (at least 2 years) were more beneficial and outcomes were more sustained than those PHI interventions that lasted for a shorter period.
BACKGROUND: Primary source of funding was Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association (GMHBA), an Australian private health insurer.