Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30082363›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Cost-utility analysis of low-intensity case management to increase contact with health services among ex-prisoners in Australia.

Qinglu Cheng, Stuart A Kinner, Xing J Lee, Kathryn J Snow, Nicholas Graves

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Qinglu ChengAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI), Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3701-8760
Stuart A KinnerMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Xing J LeeAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI), Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8803-2810
Kathryn J SnowMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Nicholas GravesAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI), Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5559-3267

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe economic burden of incarceration is substantial in Australia. People released from prison are at high risk of poor health and this is an important predictor of recidivism. The 'Passports Study' was a randomised controlled trial of an intervention designed to increase health service utilisation after release from prison. The aim of this study is to conduct a cost-utility analysis of this transitional programme.

settingAustralia

designA hybrid simulation model was developed to estimate the changes to total economic costs and effectiveness expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from the adoption of the 'Passports' intervention compared with the control group. Model parameters were informed by linked data from Queensland Corrective Services, Medicare, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Queensland Hospital Admission Patient Data Collection, Emergency Department Information System and National Death Index. Health-related quality of life was measured using the Short-Form 8 Health Survey (SF-8). The primary outcomes were the costs and estimated QALYs associated with the intervention group and the control group. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to test parameter uncertainties.

resultsCompared with the control group where no attempt was made to encourage health service utilisation, an average participant in the intervention group incurred an extra cost of AUD 1790 and experienced slightly reduced QALYs, which indicated that the intervention was dominated in the baseline analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the transitional programme had a low probability of being cost-effective with the outcome measures selected.

conclusionThe findings of this study do not provide economic evidence to support the widespread adoption of the Passports intervention. Due to the reductionist nature of the cost-utility approach, it may be that important health-related benefits have been omitted. Another research approach using a wider range of health-related measures might generate different conclusions.

Indexed as

AustraliaCase ManagementComputer SimulationCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth Care CostsHealth ServicesHumansModels, EconomicPrimary Health CarePrisonersQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topiccost-effectivenesscost-utilityex-prisonerhealth service utilisationtransitional program

Identifiers

PMID30082363
PMCPMC6078233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.