4.2 Review

A review of cost-effectiveness, cost-containment and economics curricula in graduate medical education

Journal

JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 1055-1062

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01249.x

Keywords

cost-containment; cost-effectiveness; graduate medical education; health economics; systems-based practice

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Numerous studies performed over the last 30 years suggest that doctors have poor knowledge of the costs of medical care. In most graduate medical education programmes, trainees do not receive formal training in cost-effective medical practice. Methods Comprehensive literature search of electronic bibliographic databases for articles that describe health economics, cost-containment and cost-effectiveness curricula in graduate medical education. Critical appraisal of the literature and qualitative description is presented. Heterogeneity of curricula precluded quantitative summary of data. Results We identified 40 articles that met the inclusion criteria for this review. Internal medicine residents were the targeted learners in 27 studies (68%); Family Medicine and Surgery residents were each targeted in five studies (13%); Rehabilitation, Paediatrics and Emergency Medicine residents were each targeted in one study. In general, the methodological quality of the included studies was poor to moderate and mostly targeted knowledge of health economics or cost-containment as opposed to targeting cost-effectiveness. In terms of describing the standard curricular components, studies sufficiently described the different educational strategies (e.g. didactics, interactive, experiential, self-directed) and the component of learner assessment, but lacked the description of other elements such as needs assessment and curriculum evaluation. Conclusion Cost-effectiveness curricula in graduate medical education are lacking and clearly needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available