Trial reportTranslational behavioral medicine2021
Can digital communication technology reduce health system personnel time? An evaluation of personnel requirements and costs in a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Translational behavioral medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adapting adaptive design methods to accelerate adoption of a digital asthma management intervention.Translational behavioral medicine · 2023Article
- A scoping review of mHealth monitoring of pediatric bronchial asthma before and during COVID-19 pandemic.Paediatric respiratory reviews · 2022Article
- Value-based digital health: A systematic literature review of the value elements of digital health care.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Use of digital communication technologies (DCT) shows promise for enhancing outcomes and efficiencies in asthma care management. However, little is known about the impact of DCT interventions on healthcare personnel requirements and costs, thus making it difficult for providers and health systems to understand the value of these interventions. This study evaluated the differences in healthcare personnel requirements and costs between usual asthma care (UC) and a DCT intervention (Breathewell) aimed at maintaining guidelines-based asthma care while reducing health care staffing requirements. We used data from a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial conducted in a large integrated health system involving 14,978 patients diagnosed with asthma. To evaluate differences in staffing requirements and cost between Breathewell and UC needed to deliver guideline-based care we used electronic health record (EHR) events, provider time tracking surveys, and invoicing. Differences in cost were reported at the patient and health system level. The Breathewell intervention significantly reduced personnel requirements with a larger percentage of participants requiring no personnel time (45% vs. 5%, p < .001) and smaller percentage of participants requiring follow-up outreach (44% vs. 68%, p < .001). Extrapolated to the total health system, cost for the Breathewell intervention was $16,278 less than usual care. The intervention became cost savings at a sample size of at least 957 patients diagnosed with asthma. At the population level, using DCT to compliment current asthma care practice presents an opportunity to reduce healthcare personnel requirements while maintaining population-based asthma control measures.
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.