↓ Skip to main content

The potential role of cost-utility analysis in the decision to implement major system change in acute stroke services in metropolitan areas in England

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
The potential role of cost-utility analysis in the decision to implement major system change in acute stroke services in metropolitan areas in England
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0301-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachael M. Hunter, Naomi J. Fulop, Ruth J. Boaden, Christopher McKevitt, Catherine Perry, Angus I. G. Ramsay, Anthony G. Rudd, Simon J. Turner, Pippa J. Tyrrell, Charles D. A. Wolfe, Stephen Morris

Abstract

The economic implications of major system change are an important component of the decision to implement health service reconfigurations. Little is known about how best to report the results of economic evaluations of major system change to inform decision-makers. Reconfiguration of acute stroke care in two metropolitan areas in England, namely London and Greater Manchester (GM), was used to analyse the economic implications of two different implementation strategies for major system change. A decision analytic model was used to calculate difference-in-differences in costs and outcomes before and after the implementation of two major system change strategies in stroke care in London and GM. Values in the model were based on patient level data from Hospital Episode Statistics, linked mortality data from the Office of National Statistics and data from two national stroke audits. Results were presented as net monetary benefit (NMB) and using Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) to assess the costs and benefits of a hypothetical typical region in England with approximately 4000 strokes a year. In London, after 90 days, there were nine fewer deaths per 1000 patients compared to the rest of England (95% CI -24 to 6) at an additional cost of £770,027 per 1000 stroke patients admitted. There were two additional deaths (95% CI -19 to 23) in GM, with a total costs saving of £156,118 per 1000 patients compared to the rest of England. At a £30,000 willingness to pay the NMB was higher in London and GM than the rest of England over the same time period. The results of the PBMA suggest that a GM style reconfiguration could result in a total greater health benefit to a region. Implementation costs were £136 per patient in London and £75 in GM. The implementation of major system change in acute stroke care may result in a net health benefit to a region, even one functioning within a fixed budget. The choice of what model of stroke reconfiguration to implement may depend on the relative importance of clinical versus cost outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 20%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 23 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 23 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,197,608
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#303
of 1,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,904
of 333,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#15
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 333,763 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 50% of its contemporaries.