ArticleBMJ open2019
Healthcare utilisation for eating disorders among patients with depression: a cross-sectional study in Taiwan.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAlthough depressed patients may have a comorbid eating disorder (ED), to date, no study has focused on healthcare utilisation among this population. This study was designed to investigate the characteristics of healthcare service utilisation among depressed patients with ED.
designA cross-sectional study.
settingThis population-based study used claims data from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research database between 2001 and 2012.
participantsThe study involved 1270 participants. These included 254 depressed individuals with ED and 1016 propensity score-matched depressed individuals without ED. OUTCOME MEASURES: We tracked each patient for a 1 year period to evaluate their healthcare service utilisation, including outpatient visits, inpatient days, and costs for psychiatry and non-psychiatry services. We performed a Mann-Whitney U test to compare outcome variables in healthcare service utilisation between the two groups.
resultsPatients with both depression and ED had significantly more outpatient visits (32.2 vs 28.9, p=0.023), outpatient costs (US$1089 vs US$877, p<0.001) and total costs (US$1356 vs US$1296, p<0.001) than comparison patients. For psychiatric services, patients with depression and ED had more outpatient visits (11.0 vs 6.8, p<0.001), outpatient costs (US$584 vs US$320, p<0.001) and total costs (US$657 vs US$568, p<0.001) than those without ED. For non-psychiatric services, there was no significant difference for all utilisation. This indicates that the total costs were about 1.0-fold greater for depression patient with ED than those without ED.
conclusionDepression patients with ED had more outpatient visits, outpatient costs and total costs of healthcare services than those without ED.
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.