↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of home versus clinic-based management of chronic heart failure: Extended follow-up of a pragmatic, multicentre randomized trial cohort — The WHICH? study (Which Heart Failure…

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Cardiology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 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
Cost-effectiveness of home versus clinic-based management of chronic heart failure: Extended follow-up of a pragmatic, multicentre randomized trial cohort — The WHICH? study (Which Heart Failure Intervention Is Most Cost-Effective & Consumer Friendly in Reducing Hospital Care)
Published in
International Journal of Cardiology, August 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.08.066
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shoko Maru, Joshua Byrnes, Melinda J. Carrington, Yih-Kai Chan, David R. Thompson, Simon Stewart, Paul A. Scuffham, on behalf of the WHICH? Trial Investigators

Abstract

To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of two multidisciplinary management programs for elderly patients hospitalized with chronic heart failure (CHF) and how it is influenced by patient characteristics. A trial-based analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial of 280 elderly patients with CHF discharged to home from three Australian tertiary hospitals. Two interventions were compared: home-based intervention (HBI) that involved home visiting with community-based care versus specialized clinic-based intervention (CBI). Bootstrapped incremental cost-utility ratios were computed based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total healthcare costs. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed based on incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). We performed multiple linear regression to explore which patient characteristics may impact patient-level NMB. During median follow-up of 3.2years, HBI was associated with slightly higher QALYs (+0.26years per person; p=0.078) and lower total healthcare costs (AU$ -13,100 per person; p=0.025) mainly driven by significantly reduced duration of all-cause hospital stay (-10days; p=0.006). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$ 50,000 per additional QALY, the probability of HBI being better-valued was 96% and the incremental NMB of HBI was AU$ 24,342 (discounted, 5%). The variables associated with increased NMB were HBI (vs. CBI), lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, no hyponatremia, fewer months of HF, fewer prior HF admissions <1year and a higher patient's self-care confidence. HBI's net benefit further increased in those with fewer comorbidities, a lower self-care confidence or no hyponatremia. Compared with CBI, HBI is likely to be cost-effective in elderly CHF patients with significant comorbidity.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 145 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 18%
Student > Master 23 16%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 36 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 7%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 45 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,106,764
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Cardiology
#168
of 7,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,951
of 275,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Cardiology
#2
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,535 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 275,817 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.