↓ Skip to main content

The cost-effectiveness of a patient centred pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: Findings from the INTACT cluster randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nursing Studies, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
380 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.
Article details
Title
The cost-effectiveness of a patient centred pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: Findings from the INTACT cluster randomised trial
Published in
International Journal of Nursing Studies, June 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.06.014
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Pressure ulcers are serious, avoidable, costly and common adverse outcomes of healthcare. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred pressure ulcer prevention care bundle compared to standard care. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of pressure ulcer prevention performed from the health system perspective using data collected alongside a cluster-randomised trial. Eight tertiary hospitals in Australia. Adult patients receiving either a patient-centred pressure ulcer prevention care bundle (n=799) or standard care (n=799). Direct costs related to the intervention and preventative strategies were collected from trial data and supplemented by micro-costing data on patient turning and skin care from a 4-week substudy (n=317). The time horizon for the economic evaluation matched the trial duration, with the endpoint being diagnosis of a new pressure ulcer, hospital discharge/transfer or 28days; whichever occurred first. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the primary outcome was the incremental costs of prevention per additional hospital acquired pressure ulcer case avoided, estimated using a two-stage cluster-adjusted non-parametric bootstrap method. The cost-benefit analysis estimated net monetary benefit, which considered both the costs of prevention and any difference in length of stay. All costs are reported in AU$(2015). The care bundle cost AU$144.91 (95%CI: $74.96 to $246.08) more per patient than standard care. The largest contributors to cost were clinical nurse time for repositioning and skin inspection. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the care bundle was estimated to cost an additional $3296 (95%CI: dominant to $144,525) per pressure ulcer avoided. This estimate is highly uncertain. Length of stay was unexpectedly higher in the care bundle group. In a cost-benefit analysis which considered length of stay, the net monetary benefit for the care bundle was estimated to be -$2320 (95%CI -$3900, -$1175) per patient, suggesting the care bundle was not a cost-effective use of resources. A pressure ulcer prevention care bundle consisting of multicomponent nurse training and patient education may promote best practice nursing care but may not be cost-effective in preventing hospital acquired pressure ulcer.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 380 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 380 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 11%
Student > Bachelor 33 9%
Researcher 19 5%
Other 18 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 4%
Other 60 16%
Unknown 194 51%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 103 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 37 10%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 2%
Unspecified 6 2%
Other 30 8%
Unknown 191 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#8,975,554
of 33,222,652 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#1,207
of 2,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,631
of 354,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#20
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,222,652 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 2,935 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 354,048 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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.