↓ Skip to main content

The Impact of Population-Based Disease Management Services on Health Care Utilisation and Costs: Results of the CAPICHe Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
The Impact of Population-Based Disease Management Services on Health Care Utilisation and Costs: Results of the CAPICHe Trial
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4682-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul A. Scuffham, Joshua M. Byrnes, Christine Pollicino, David Cross, Stan Goldstein, Shu-Kay Ng

Abstract

Disease management programmes may improve quality of care, improve health outcomes and potentially reduce total healthcare costs. To date, only one very large population-based study has been undertaken and indicated reductions in hospital admissions > 10%. We sought to confirm the effectiveness of population-based disease management programmes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative impact on healthcare utilisation and cost of participants the Costs to Australian Private Insurance - Coaching Health (CAPICHe) trial. Parallel-group randomised controlled trial, intention-to-treat analysis SETTING: Australian population PARTICIPANTS: Forty-four thousand four hundred eighteen individuals (18-90 years of age) with private health insurance and diagnosis of heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes, or low back pain, with predicted high cost claims for the following 12 months. Health coaching for disease management from Bupa Health Dialog, vs Usual Care. Total cost of claims per member to the private health insurer 1 year post-randomisation for hospital admissions, including same-day, medical and prostheses hospital claims, excluding any maternity costs. Analysis was based on the intent-to-treat population. Estimated total cost 1 year post-randomisation was not significantly different (means: intervention group A$4934; 95% CI A$4823-A$5045 vs control group A$4868; 95% CI A$4680-A$5058; p = 0.524). However, the intervention group had significantly lower same-day admission costs (A$468; 95% CI A$454-A$482 vs A$508; 95% CI A$484-A$533; p = 0.002) and fewer same-day admissions per 1000 person-years (intervention group, 530; 95% CI 508-552 vs control group, 614; 95% CI 571-657; p = 0.002). Subgroup analyses indicated that the intervention group had significantly fewer admissions for patients with COPD and fewer same-day admissions for patients with diabetes. Chronic disease health coaching was not effective to reduce the total cost after 12 months of follow-up for higher risk individuals with a chronic condition. Statistically significant changes were found with fewer same-day admissions; however, these did not translate into cost savings from a private health insurance perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Unspecified 5 4%
Researcher 5 4%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 48 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 13%
Unspecified 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 57 51%
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 21 April 2020.
All research outputs
#18,756,367
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,408
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,050
of 345,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#94
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 345,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.