ArticleAtencion primaria2012
[Comparison of three methods for measuring multiple morbidity according to the use of health resources in primary healthcare].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Impact of cardiovascular risk factors on the consumption of resources in Primary Care according to Clinical Risk Groups].Atencion primaria · 2019Observational
- Article
- Burden of multimorbidity, socioeconomic status and use of health services across stages of life in urban areas: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2014Article
- Relationship between efficiency and clinical effectiveness indicators in an adjusted model of resource consumption: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare three methods of measuring multiple morbidity according to the use of health resources (cost of care) in primary healthcare (PHC).
designRetrospective study using computerized medical records.
settingThirteen PHC teams in Catalonia (Spain).
participantsAssigned patients requiring care in 2008. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The socio-demographic variables were co-morbidity and costs. Methods of comparison were: a) Combined Comorbidity Index (CCI): an index itself was developed from the scores of acute and chronic episodes, b) Charlson Index (ChI), and c) Adjusted Clinical Groups case-mix: resource use bands (RUB). The cost model was constructed by differentiating between fixed (operational) and variable costs. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: 3 multiple lineal regression models were developed to assess the explanatory power of each measurement of co-morbidity which were compared from the determination coefficient (R(2)), p< .05.
resultsThe study included 227,235 patients. The mean unit of cost was €654.2. The CCI explained an R(2)=50.4%, the ChI an R(2)=29.2% and BUR an R(2)=39.7% of the variability of the cost. The behaviour of the ICC is acceptable, albeit with low scores (1 to 3 points), showing inconclusive results.
conclusionsThe CCI may be a simple method of predicting PHC costs in routine clinical practice. If confirmed, these results will allow improvements in the comparison of the case-mix.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.