↓ Skip to main content

Value-Based Health Care Meets Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Overview of attention for article published in ACP Journal Club, August 2018
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 (95th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
58 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 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
Value-Based Health Care Meets Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Published in
ACP Journal Club, August 2018
DOI 10.7326/m18-0342
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joel Tsevat, Christopher Moriates

Abstract

Value-based health care (VBHC) has recently emerged as a prominent movement within health care. Value-based health care focuses on maximizing outcomes achieved per dollar spent. As such, it bears many similarities to a well-established method, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), which provides a framework for comparing the relative value of different diagnostic or treatment interventions. Both approaches address "bang for the health care buck," but although they overlap in many ways, VBHC and CEA differ with regard to their main applications, their perspective, and the types of costs and outcomes they consider. For example, CEA generally considers costs and benefits from the societal or health care sector perspectives, whereas VBHC is intended to adopt the patient perspective. As such, CEA is intended to inform coverage decisions at a group or population level and VBHC is intended to be implemented at the level of clinician-patient interactions. Meanwhile, value-based payment has emerged as a visible component of VBHC and is gaining a foothold in the United States in various forms, particularly bundled payments, and accountable care organizations in an effort to reward high-value care and disincentivize low-value care. Differences aside, as the worlds of VBHC and CEA begin to intersect, each discipline can learn from the other.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 159 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 15%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 48 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 6%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Unspecified 4 3%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 59 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 18 January 2022.
All research outputs
#790,656
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from ACP Journal Club
#2,414
of 13,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,619
of 343,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ACP Journal Club
#63
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 343,512 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 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 59% of its contemporaries.