Trial reportHealth services research2018
Presenting Cost and Efficiency Measures That Support Consumers to Make High-Value Health Care Choices.
Trial report in Health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing cost containment of future healthcare with maintained or improved quality-The COSTCARES project.Health science reports · 2021Review
- Supporting Innovative Person-Centred Care in Financially Constrained Environments: The WE CARE Exploratory Health Laboratory Evaluation Strategy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify approaches to presenting cost and resource use measures that support consumers in selecting high-value hospitals. DATA SOURCES: Survey data were collected from U.S. employees of Analog Devices (n = 420). STUDY
designIn two online experiments, participants viewed comparative data on four hospitals. In one experiment, participants were randomized to view one of five versions of the same comparative cost data, and in the other experiment they viewed different versions of the same readmissions data. Bivariate and multivariate analyses examined whether presentation approach was related to selecting the high-value hospital. PRINCIPAL
findingsConsumers were approximately 16 percentage points more likely to select a high-value hospital when cost data were presented using actual dollar amounts or using the word "affordable" to describe low-cost hospitals, compared to when the Hospital Compare spending ratio was used. Consumers were 33 points more likely to select the highest performing hospital when readmission performance was shown using word icons rather than percentages.
conclusionsPresenting cost and resource use measures effectively to consumers is challenging. This study suggests using actual dollar amounts for cost, but presenting performance on readmissions using evaluative symbols.
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.