↓ Skip to main content

Economic analysis of costs with enteral and parenteral nutritional therapy according to disease and outcome

Overview of attention for article published in Einstein (São Paulo), January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Economic analysis of costs with enteral and parenteral nutritional therapy according to disease and outcome
Published in
Einstein (São Paulo), January 2017
DOI 10.1590/s1679-45082017gs4002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adriano Hyeda, Élide Sbardellotto Mariano da Costa

Abstract

To conduct an economic analysis of enteral and parenteral diet costs according to the type of disease and outcome (survivors versus deaths). It is a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study with a qualitative and quantitative design, based on analysis of hospital accounts from a healthcare insurance provider in the Southern region of Brazil. We analyzed 301 hospital accounts of individuals who used enteral and parenteral diets. The total cost of the diet was 35.4% of hospital account total costs. The enteral modality accounted for 59.8% of total dietary costs. The major costs with diets were observed in hospitalizations related to infections, cancers and cerebro-cardiovascular diseases. The major costs with parenteral diet were with admissions related by cancers (64.52%) and dementia syndromes (46.17%). The highest ratio between total diet costs with the total of hospital account costs was in dementia syndromes (46.32%) and in cancers (41.2%). The individuals who died spent 51.26% of total of hospital account costs, being 32.81% in diet (47.45% of total diet value and 58.81% in parenteral modality). Enteral and parenteral nutritional therapies account for a significant part of the costs with hospitalized individuals, especially in cases of cancers and dementia syndromes. The costs of parenteral diets were higher in the group of patients who died. Realizar uma análise econômica de custos da terapia nutricional enteral e parenteral, conforme o tipo de doença e o desfecho (sobreviventes versus óbitos). Estudo transversal, observacional, retrospectivo, com estratégia qualitativa e quantitativa, a partir da análise de contas hospitalares de uma operadora de saúde da Região Sul do Brasil. Foram analisadas 301 contas hospitalares de usuários que utilizaram dieta enteral e parenteral. O custo total com dieta foi de 35,4% do custo total das contas hospitalares. A modalidade enteral representou 59,8% do custo total em dieta. Os maiores custos com dieta foram observados em internações relacionadas a infecções, cânceres e doenças cérebro-cardiovasculares. Os maiores custos com dieta parenteral foram observados nas internações relacionadas aos cânceres (64,52%) e às síndromes demenciais (46,17%). A maior relação entre o custo total com dieta e o custo total da conta foi na síndrome demencial (46,32%) e no câncer (41,2%). Os usuários que foram a óbito consumiram 51,26% dos custos totais das contas, sendo 32,81% com dieta (47,45% do valor total com dieta e 58,81% do custo na modalidade parenteral). As terapias nutricionais enteral e parenteral representaram uma parte importante dos custos no tratamento de indivíduos hospitalizados, principalmente nos casos dos cânceres e nas síndromes demenciais. O custo com dieta parenteral foi maior no grupo de usuários que foram a óbito.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 26 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,965,122
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Einstein (São Paulo)
#79
of 576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,807
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Einstein (São Paulo)
#8
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 421,709 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 69% of its contemporaries.