Are complementary therapies and integrative care cost-effective? A systematic review of economic evaluations
- PMID: 22945962
- PMCID: PMC3437424
- DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001046
Are complementary therapies and integrative care cost-effective? A systematic review of economic evaluations
Abstract
Objective: A comprehensive systematic review of economic evaluations of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) to establish the value of these therapies to health reform efforts.
Data sources: PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, PsychInfo, Web of Science and EMBASE were searched from inception through 2010. In addition, bibliographies of found articles and reviews were searched, and key researchers were contacted.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Studies of CIM were identified using criteria based on those of the Cochrane complementary and alternative medicine group. All studies of CIM reporting economic outcomes were included. STUDY APPRAISAL METHODS: All recent (and likely most cost-relevant) full economic evaluations published 2001-2010 were subjected to several measures of quality. Detailed results of higher-quality studies are reported.
Results: A total of 338 economic evaluations of CIM were identified, of which 204, covering a wide variety of CIM for different populations, were published 2001-2010. A total of 114 of these were full economic evaluations. And 90% of these articles covered studies of single CIM therapies and only one compared usual care to usual care plus access to multiple licensed CIM practitioners. Of the recent full evaluations, 31 (27%) met five study-quality criteria, and 22 of these also met the minimum criterion for study transferability ('generalisability'). Of the 56 comparisons made in the higher-quality studies, 16 (29%) show a health improvement with cost savings for the CIM therapy versus usual care. Study quality of the cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of CIM was generally comparable to that seen in CUAs across all medicine according to several measures, and the quality of the cost-saving studies was slightly, but not significantly, lower than those showing cost increases (85% vs 88%, p=0.460).
Conclusions: This comprehensive review identified many CIM economic evaluations missed by previous reviews and emerging evidence of cost-effectiveness and possible cost savings in at least a few clinical populations. Recommendations are made for future studies.
Figures
References
-
- Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, et al. Unconventional medicine in the United States: prevalence, costs, and patterns of use. N Engl J Med 1993;328:246–52 - PubMed
-
- Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990–1997. JAMA 1998;280:1569–75 - PubMed
-
- Barnes PM, Powell-Griner E, McFann K, et al. Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults: United States, 2002. Advance data from Vital and Health Statistics. Hyattsville, MA: National Center for Health Statistics, 2004 - PubMed
-
- Nahin RL, Barnes PM, Stussman BJ, et al. Costs of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and frequency of visits to CAM practitioners: United States, 2007. National Health Statistics Reports. Hyattsville, MA: National Center for Health Statistics, 2009 - PubMed
-
- MacLennan AH, Wilson DH, Taylor AW. The escalating cost and prevalence of alternative medicine. Prev Med 2002;35:166–73 - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Molecular Biology Databases
Miscellaneous