Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32922722›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2020

Cost-consequence analysis of self-administration of medication during hospitalization: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in a Danish hospital setting.

Charlotte Arp Sørensen, Annette de Thurah, Marianne Lisby, Charlotte Olesen, Signe Bredsgaard Sørensen, Ulrika Enemark

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte Arp SørensenRanders Regional Hospital, Dronningborg Boulevard 16D, Randers NØ, 8930, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0417-1379
Annette de ThurahDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Health, Denmark.
Marianne LisbyDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Health, Denmark.
Charlotte OlesenHospital Pharmacy Central Denmark Region, Clinical Pharmacy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
Signe Bredsgaard SørensenMedical Department, Cardiology unit, Randers Regional Hospital, Denmark.
Ulrika EnemarkDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKAarhus University Hospital · DKRegional Hospital Randers · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the costs and consequences of introducing "self-administration of medication" (SAM) during hospitalization as compared with nurse-led dispensing and administration of medication.

methodsThis pragmatic randomized controlled trial was performed in a Danish Cardiology Unit. Patients ⩾18 years old capable of self-administering medication were eligible. In the intervention group, patients self-administered their medication. In the control group, medication was dispensed and administered by nurses. The implementation of SAM was used to evaluate the cost-consequences. The micro-costing analysis used the hospital perspective and a short-term incremental costing approach. The costs for medication, materials, and nursing time were included. Consequences included the dispensing error proportion, patients' perceptions regarding medication, satisfaction, and deviations in the medication list at follow-up. In addition, the number of readmissions and general practitioner (GP) contacts within 30 days after discharge was included.

resultsThe total cost (TC) per patient in the intervention group was 49.9€ (95% CI: 46.6-53.2) compared with 52.6€ (95% CI: 46.6-58.6) in the control group. The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (

conclusionsSAM seems to cost less although the cost difference was small and not statistically significant. As SAM had positive effects on patient outcomes, the results indicate that SAM may be cost-effective. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY:

Indexed as

beliefs about medicinescost analysiscost–consequencedispensing errorhealth economic evaluationsatisfactionself-administrationself-management

Identifiers

PMID32922722
PMCPMC7457413
OpenAlexW3082858285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.