↓ Skip to main content

Patient-physician discussions about costs: definitions and impact on cost conversation incidence estimates

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Patient-physician discussions about costs: definitions and impact on cost conversation incidence estimates
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1353-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wynn G. Hunter, Ashley Hesson, J. Kelly Davis, Christine Kirby, Lillie D. Williamson, Jamison A. Barnett, Peter A. Ubel

Abstract

Nearly one in three Americans are financially burdened by their medical expenses. To mitigate financial distress, experts recommend routine physician-patient cost conversations. However, the content and incidence of these conversations are unclear, and rigorous definitions are lacking. We sought to develop a novel set of cost conversation definitions, and determine the impact of definitional variation on cost conversation incidence in three clinical settings. Retrospective, mixed-methods analysis of transcribed dialogue from 1,755 outpatient encounters for routine clinical management of breast cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and depression, occurring between 2010-2014. We developed cost conversation definitions using summative content analysis. Transcripts were evaluated independently by at least two members of our multi-disciplinary team to determine cost conversation incidence using each definition. Incidence estimates were compared using Pearson's Chi-Square Tests. Three cost conversation definitions emerged from our analysis: (a) Out-of-Pocket (OoP) Cost -- discussion of the patient's OoP costs for a healthcare service; (b) Cost/Coverage -- discussion of the patient's OoP costs or insurance coverage; (c) Cost of Illness-- discussion of financial costs or insurance coverage related to health or healthcare. These definitions were hierarchical; OoP Cost was a subset of Cost/Coverage, which was a subset of Cost of Illness. In each clinical setting, we observed significant variation in the incidence of cost conversations when using different definitions; breast oncology: 16, 22, 24 % of clinic visits contained cost conversation (OOP Cost, Cost/Coverage, Cost of Illness, respectively; P < 0.001); depression: 30, 38, 43 %, (P < 0.001); and rheumatoid arthritis, 26, 33, 35 %, (P < 0.001). The estimated incidence of physician-patient cost conversation varied significantly depending on the definition used. Our findings and proposed definitions may assist in retrospective interpretation and prospective design of investigations on this topic.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 94 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Professor 7 7%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Psychology 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 34 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,672,669
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,129
of 7,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,193
of 301,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#15
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,647 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 301,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.