Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29479695›Full record

Trial reportHealth services research2018

Presenting Cost and Efficiency Measures That Support Consumers to Make High-Value Health Care Choices.

Jessica Greene, Rebecca M Sacks

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jessica GreeneMarxe School of Public and International Affairs, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0003-1664-3804
Rebecca M SacksGeorge Washington University, Washington, DC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Choice BehaviorEfficiency, OrganizationalAdultDecision MakingFemaleHealth ExpendituresHospital AdministrationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ReadmissionQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of Health CareUnited Stateshealth care costsmedical decision-makingQuality improvement/report cards

Identifiers

PMID29479695
PMCPMC6056584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.