Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32767979›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2020

Exploring the costs, consequences and efficiency of three types of palliative care day services in the UK: a pragmatic before-and-after descriptive cohort study.

Paul Mark Mitchell, Joanna Coast, Gareth Myring, Federico Ricciardi, Victoria Vickerstaff, Louise Jones, Shazia Zafar, Sarah Cudmore, Joanne Jordan, Laurie McKibben and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  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

16 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Paul Mark MitchellHealth Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. paul.mitchell@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7593-4460
Joanna CoastHealth Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Gareth MyringHealth Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Federico RicciardiDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Victoria VickerstaffMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, London, UK.
Louise JonesMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, London, UK.
Shazia ZafarSchool of Nursing, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sarah CudmoreDivision of Nursing, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK.
Joanne JordanSchool of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
Laurie McKibbenInstitute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, UK.
Lisa Graham-WisenerMarie Curie Hospice, Belfast and School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Anne M FinucaneMarie Curie Hospice, Edinburgh and Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Alistair HewisonSchool of Nursing, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Erna HaraldsdottirDivision of Nursing, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK.
Kevin BrazilSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
W George KernohanInstitute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, UK.
University College London · GBQueen Margaret University · GBQueen's University Belfast · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Ulster · GBAt Bristol · GBMarie Curie Hospice · GBThe Open University · GB

Funding

Marie Curie A17114Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-UMarie Curie MCCC-RP-14-A17114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPalliative Care Day Services (PCDS) offer supportive care to people with advanced, progressive illness who may be approaching the end of life. Despite the growth of PCDS in recent years, evidence of their costs and effects is scarce. It is important to establish the value of such services so that health and care decision-makers can make evidence-based resource allocation decisions. This study examines and estimates the costs and effects of PCDS with different service configurations in three centres across the UK in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

methodsPeople who had been referred to PCDS were recruited between June 2017 and September 2018. A pragmatic before-and-after descriptive cohort study design analysed data on costs and outcomes. Data on costs were collected on health and care use in the 4 weeks preceding PCDS attendance using adapted versions of the Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI). Outcomes, cost per attendee/day and volunteer contribution to PCDS were also estimated. Outcomes included quality of life (MQOL-E), health status (EQ-5D-5L) and capability wellbeing (ICECAP-SCM).

resultsThirty-eight attendees were recruited and provided data at baseline and 4 weeks (centre 1: n = 8; centre 2: n = 8, centre 3: n = 22). The cost per attendee/day ranged from £121-£190 (excluding volunteer contribution) to £172-£264 (including volunteer contribution) across the three sites. Volunteering constituted between 28 and 38% of the total cost of PCDS provision. There was no significant mean change at 4 week follow-up from baseline for health and care costs (centre 1: £570, centre 2: -£1127, centre 3: £65), or outcomes: MQOL-E (centre 1: - 0.48, centre 2: 0.01, centre 3: 0.24); EQ-5D-5L (centre 1: 0.05, centre 2: 0.03, centre 3: - 0.03) and ICECAP-SCM (centre 1:0.00, centre 2: - 0.01, centre 3: 0.03). Centre costs variation is almost double per attendee when attendance rates are held constant in scenario analysis.

conclusionsThis study highlights the contribution made by volunteers to PCDS provision. There is insufficient evidence on whether outcomes improved, or costs were reduced, in the three different service configurations for PCDS. We suggest how future research may overcome some of the challenges we encountered, to better address questions of cost-effectiveness in PCDS.

Indexed as

AdultCohort StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisDay Care, MedicalFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPalliative CareUnited KingdomCostsEnd of lifeHealth economicsPalliative care day servicesQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID32767979
PMCPMC7412842
OpenAlexW3046012773

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.