Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32613374›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Supportive health education reduces health care utilization and costs in Latinas with breast cancer and their caregivers.

Terry A Badger, Alla Sikorskii, Chris Segrin, Charles W Given

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial of symptom management for cancer survivors during treatment and their informal caregivers.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Terry A BadgerCollege of Nursing, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA. tbadger@email.arizona.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2403-9562
Alla SikorskiiDepartment of Psychiatry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
Chris SegrinDepartment of Communication, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
Charles W GivenCollege of Nursing, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
Michigan State University · USUniversity of Arizona · US

Funding

American Cancer Society RSG-12-120-01-CPPB
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare costs and relative cost savings from reductions in unscheduled health services use for two 8-week psychosocial interventions (telephone interpersonal counseling [TIPC], supportive health education [SHE]) delivered by telephone to Latinas with breast cancer and their informal caregivers. Cost information is required before adopting supportive care interventions as part of routine care. There is limited information on costs of producing supportive care interventions or their impact on service use.

methodsLatinas and their caregivers were randomized to either TIPC or SHE. At baseline and month 4, hospitalizations and urgent care and emergency department (ED) visits in the previous month were recorded. These were compared by trial arm for 181 survivors and 169 caregivers using logistic regression, adjusting for age and health services use at baseline.

resultsTotal cost per 100 survivors was $28,695 for SHE and $27,399 for TIPC. Urgent care and ED visits were reduced for survivors in SHE versus TIPC (odds ratio (OR) = 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.12, 0.88], p = .03). For hospitalizations, OR for SHE versus TIPC was 0.59, 95% CI [0.26, 1.37], p = .07. There were no differences between trial arms for caregiver health services use. Cost savings for SHE versus TIPC from reductions in health services use per 100 survivors ranged from $800 for urgent care to $17,000 for ED visits and $13,000 for hospitalizations.

conclusionsBased on this evidence, SHE can be a cost-saving supportive care solution that benefits not only survivors and caregivers, but also oncology practices reimbursed through episodes of care.

Indexed as

AdultBreast NeoplasmsCaregiversFemaleHealth Care CostsHealth EducationHispanic or LatinoHumansMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareBreast cancerCostHealth services useHispanicLatinaSupportive care

Identifiers

PMID32613374
OpenAlexW3039597484

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.