↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of medical records and patient questionnaires as sources for the estimation of costs within research studies and the implications for economic evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Family Practice, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparison of medical records and patient questionnaires as sources for the estimation of costs within research studies and the implications for economic evaluation
Published in
Family Practice, September 2016
DOI 10.1093/fampra/cmw088
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paddy Gillespie, Eamon O'Shea, Susan M Smith, Margaret E Cupples, Andrew W Murphy

Abstract

Data on health care utilization may be collected using a variety of mechanisms within research studies, each of which may have implications for cost and cost effectiveness. The aim of this observational study is to compare data collected from medical records searches and self-report questionnaires for the cost analysis of a cardiac secondary prevention intervention. Secondary data analysis of the Secondary Prevention of Heart Disease in General Practice (SPHERE) randomized controlled trial (RCT). Resource use data for a range of health care services were collected by research nurse searches of medical records and self-report questionnaires and costs of care estimated for each data collection mechanism. A series of statistical analyses were conducted to compare the mean costs for medical records data versus questionnaire data and to conduct incremental analyses for the intervention and control arms in the trial. Data were available to estimate costs for 95% of patients in the intervention and 96% of patients in the control using the medical records data compared to 65% and 66%, respectively, using the questionnaire data. The incremental analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in mean cost of -€796 (95% CI: -1447, -144; P-value: 0.017) for the intervention relative to the control. This compared to no significant difference in mean cost (95% CI: -1446, 860; P-value: 0.619) for the questionnaire analysis. Our findings illustrate the importance of the choice of health care utilization data collection mechanism for the conduct of economic evaluation alongside randomized trials in primary care. This choice will have implications for the costing methodology employed and potentially, for the cost and cost effectiveness outcomes generated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Master 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 19%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 13%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,703,951
of 23,337,345 outputs
Outputs from Family Practice
#1,674
of 2,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,261
of 338,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Family Practice
#38
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,337,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,096 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.