↓ Skip to main content

More frequent, more costly? Health economic modelling aspects of monitoring glaucoma patients in England

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
More frequent, more costly? Health economic modelling aspects of monitoring glaucoma patients in England
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1849-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trishal Boodhna, David P. Crabb

Abstract

Chronic open angle glaucoma (COAG) is an age-related eye disease causing irreversible loss of visual field (VF). Health service delivery for COAG is challenging given the large number of diagnosed patients requiring lifelong periodic monitoring by hospital eye services. Yet frequent examination better determines disease worsening and speed of VF loss under treatment. We examine the cost-effectiveness of increasing frequency of VF examinations during follow-up using a health economic model. Two different VF monitoring schemes defined as current practice (annual VF testing) and proposed practice (three VF tests per year in the first 2 years after diagnosis) were examined. A purpose written health economic Markov model is used to test the hypothesis that cost effectiveness improves by implementing proposed practice on groups of patients stratified by age and severity of COAG. Further, a new component of the model, estimating costs of visual impairment, was added. Results were derived from a simulated cohort of 10000 patients with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) used as main outcome measures. An ICER of £21,392 per QALY was derived for proposed practice improving to a value of £11,382 once savings for prevented visual impairment was added to the model. Proposed practice was more cost-effective in younger patients. Proposed practice for patients with advanced disease at diagnosis generated ICERs > £60,000 per QALY; these cases would likely be on the most intensive treatment pathway making clinical information on speed of VF loss redundant. Sensitivity analysis indicated results to be robust in relation to hypothetical willingness to pay threshold identified by national guidelines, although greatest uncertainty was allied to estimates of implementation and visual impairment costs. Increasing VF monitoring at the earliest stages of follow-up for COAG appears to be cost-effective depending on reasonable assumptions about implementation costs. Our health economic model highlights benefits of stratifying patients to more or less monitoring based on age and stage of disease at diagnosis; a prospective study is needed to prove these findings. Further, this works highlights gaps in knowledge about long term costs of visual impairment.

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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 15%
Other 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 20 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 24 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 June 2019.
All research outputs
#5,825,441
of 24,049,457 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,516
of 8,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,929
of 319,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#46
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,049,457 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,092 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
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 319,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.