| Title |
Cost analysis and cost-benefit analysis of a medication review with follow-up service in aged polypharmacy patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10198-016-0853-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amaia Malet-Larrea, Estíbaliz Goyenechea, Miguel A. Gastelurrutia, Begoña Calvo, Victoria García-Cárdenas, Juan M. Cabases, Aránzazu Noain, Fernando Martínez-Martínez, Daniel Sabater-Hernández, Shalom I. Benrimoj |
| Abstract |
Drug related problems have a significant clinical and economic burden on patients and the healthcare system. Medication review with follow-up (MRF) is a professional pharmacy service aimed at improving patient's health outcomes through an optimization of the medication. To ascertain the economic impact of the MRF service provided in community pharmacies to aged polypharmacy patients comparing MRF with usual care, by undertaking a cost analysis and a cost-benefit analysis. The economic evaluation was based on a cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients in the intervention group (IG) received the MRF service and the comparison group (CG) received usual care. The analysis was conducted from the national health system (NHS) perspective over 6 months. Direct medical costs were included and expressed in euros at 2014 prices. Health benefits were estimated by assigning a monetary value to the quality-adjusted life years. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis was undertaken in order to analyse the uncertainty. The analysis included 1403 patients (IG: n = 688 vs CG: n = 715). The cost analysis showed that the MRF saved 97 € per patient in 6 months. Extrapolating data to 1 year and assuming a fee for service of 22 € per patient-month, the estimated savings were 273 € per patient-year. The cost-benefit ratio revealed that for every 1 € invested in MRF, a benefit of 3.3 € to 6.2 € was obtained. The MRF provided health benefits to patients and substantial cost savings to the NHS. Investment in this service would represent an efficient use of healthcare resources. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 140 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 14% |
| Researcher | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 24 | 17% |
| Unknown | 42 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 36 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 11% |
| Unknown | 45 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 September 2019.
All research outputs
#4,978,221
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#323
of 1,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,196
of 422,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#14
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 422,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 53% of its contemporaries.