ArticleJournal of health services research & policy2021
Understanding health and care expenditure by setting - who matters to whom?
Article in Journal of health services research & policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Social interventions to support people with disability: A systematic review of economic evaluation studies.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Understanding social care need through primary care big data: a rapid scoping review.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Household Tenure and Its Associations with Multiple Long-Term Conditions amongst Working-Age Adults in East London: A Cross-Sectional Analysis Using Linked Primary Care and Local Government Records.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess service use and associated expenditure across a range of care settings in one local authority in London, United Kingdom.
methodsAn analysis of linked electronic health and council records of adults living in the borough of Barking and Dagenham, east London, for the financial year 2016/17. Unit costs were applied to individual service use to provide expenditure at an individual and population level for five settings of care. Population and expenditure volumes were compared for 32 possible combinations of service use.
resultsThe total expenditure for the cohort (114,393 residents) for 2016/17 was £180.1 million. Almost half (47%) of total expenditure was incurred by community care, social care and mental health services, with hospital care and primary care incurring, respectively, 35% (£63.3 m) and 18% (£32.6 m). The two most common combinations in terms of total population volume and expenditure were primary and hospital care, and primary, hospital and community care. Primary care was present in all combinations. Mental health service use accounted for just over a tenth of all expenditure in the borough, but using mental health services substantially increased mean expenditure per patient.
conclusionsA whole system perspective across all settings of care improves understanding of service user patterns. Setting-level analysis remains important, particularly for mental health users.
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.