Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31660527›Full record

ArticleFuture healthcare journal2019

Does cost feedback modify demand for common blood tests in secondary care? A prospective controlled intervention study.

Sarah Lewis, Ben Young, Peter Thurley, Dominick Shaw, Jo Cranwell, Rob Skelly, Tessa Langley, Mark Norwood, Nigel Dc Sturrock, Andrew W Fogarty

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future healthcare journal, 2019. 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah LewisUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Ben YoungUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Peter ThurleyRoyal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK.
Dominick ShawUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Jo CranwellUniversity of Bath, Bath, UK.
Rob SkellyRoyal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK.
Tessa LangleyUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Mark NorwoodRoyal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK.
Nigel Dc SturrockRoyal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK.
Andrew W FogartyUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
University of Nottingham · GBRoyal Derby Hospital · GBUniversity of Bath · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBehavioural insights or 'nudge' theory suggests that non-directional interventions may be used to modify human behaviour. We have tested the hypothesis that the provision of the cost of common blood tests with their results may modify subsequent demand for blood assays.

methodsThe study design was a prospective controlled intervention study. The individual and annual institutional cost of full blood count (FBC), urea and electrolytes (U&E) and liver function test (LFT) blood assays were added to the electronic results system for inpatients at the intervention teaching hospital, but not the control hospital.

resultsIn the 12 months after the intervention was implemented, demand for FBC dropped by 3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1-5; p<0.001), U&E by 2% (95% CI 0-4; p=0.054) and there was no change in demand for LFT compared to the control institution.

conclusionsProviding cost feedback to clinicians for commonly used blood tests is a viable intervention that is associated with small reductions in demand for some, but not all blood assays. As this is an easily scalable approach, this has potential to enable efficient healthcare delivery, while also minimising the morbidity experienced by the patient.

Indexed as

Blood assaycostdemandnudge

Identifiers

PMID31660527
PMCPMC6798021
OpenAlexW2964600857

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.