Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30303977›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Identification of hospital cost drivers using sparse group lasso.

Piotr Swierkowski, Adrian Barnett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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. Article
  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.

Piotr SwierkowskiAusHSI - Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation, Institute of Health Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7358-2481
Adrian BarnettAusHSI - Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation, Institute of Health Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Public hospital spending consumes a large share of government expenditure in many countries. The large cost variability observed between hospitals and also between patients in the same hospital has fueled the belief that consumption of a significant portion of this funding may result in no clinical benefit to patients, thus representing waste. Accurate identification of the main hospital cost drivers and relating them quantitatively to the observed cost variability is a necessary step towards identifying and reducing waste. This study identifies prime cost drivers in a typical, mid-sized Australian hospital and classifies them as sources of cost variability that are either warranted or not warranted-and therefore contributing to waste. An essential step is dimension reduction using Principal Component Analysis to pre-process the data by separating out the low value 'noise' from otherwise valuable information. Crucially, the study then adjusts for possible co-linearity of different cost drivers by the use of the sparse group lasso technique. This ensures reliability of the findings and represents a novel and powerful approach to analysing hospital costs. Our statistical model included 32 potential cost predictors with a sample size of over 50,000 hospital admissions. The proportion of cost variability potentially not clinically warranted was estimated at 33.7%. Given the financial footprint involved, once the findings are extrapolated nationwide, this estimation has far-reaching significance for health funding policy.

Indexed as

Healthcare FinancingHospital CostsAustraliaHospitals, PublicHumansModels, EconomicPrincipal Component Analysis

Identifiers

PMID30303977
PMCPMC6179217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.