↓ Skip to main content

Cost-utility analysis of an integrated care model for multimorbid patients based on a clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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-utility analysis of an integrated care model for multimorbid patients based on a clinical trial
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, September 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.05.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Itziar Lanzeta, Javier Mar, Arantzazu Arrospide

Abstract

To conduct a cost-utility analysis on an integrated healthcare model comprising an assigned internist and a hospital liaison nurse for patients with multimorbidity, compared to a conventional reactive healthcare system. A cluster randomised clinical trial was conducted. The model consisted of a reference internist and a liaison nurse, who aimed to improve coordination and communication between levels and to enhance continuity of care after hospitalisation. We recorded sociodemographic data, diagnoses and corresponding clinical categories, functional status, use of healthcare resources and quality of life. Data were collected by reviewing electronic medical records and administering questionnaires. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses both for utilities and total costs. Bootstrapping methods were applied to calculate the confidence ellipses of incremental costs and efficiency. We recruited a total of 140 patients. The model assessed was not found to be efficient in general. We found an incremental cost of €1,035.90 and an incremental benefit of -0.0762 QALYs for the initiative compared to standard care after adjusting for the main variables. However, the subgroup of patients under 80 years of age with three or more clinical categories resulted in an 89% cost saving in the simulations. The integrated model was not suitable for all study patients. However, the subgroup analysis identified a narrow target population that should be analysed in future studies.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 11%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Unknown 21 75%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Chemistry 1 4%
Unknown 20 71%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,610,509
of 17,368,632 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#326
of 825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,667
of 287,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#15
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,368,632 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 825 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 287,986 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.