ArticleFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery2021
The Use of Ancillary Services Under a Bundled Care Versus a Fee-For-Service Payment Model.
Article in Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesColocated services in a team-based integrated practice unit (IPU) optimize care of pelvic floor disorders. Our goal was to compare ancillary service utilization in a multidisciplinary IPU between patients covered by a bundled payment model (BPM) versus a traditional fee-for-service model (FFSM).
methodsMedical records of women attending an IPU for pelvic floor disorders with colocated services, including nutrition, social work, psychiatry, physical therapy, and subspecialty care between October 2017 and December 2018, were included in this retrospective chart review. All patients were offered treatment with ancillary services according to standardized care pathways. Data extracted included patient demographics, pelvic floor disorder diagnoses, baseline severity measures, payment model, and ancillary services used. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression identified variables predicting higher uptake of ancillary services.
resultsA total of 575 women with pelvic floor disorders presented for care during the study period, of which 35.14% attended at least 1 appointment with any ancillary services provider. Ancillary service utilization did not differ between patients in the BPM group and those in the FFSM group (36.22 vs 33.47%; P = 0.489). Social work services were more likely to be used by the BPM compared with the FFSM group (15.95 vs 6.28%; P < 0.001). The diagnosis of fecal incontinence was associated with a higher chance of using any ancillary service (odds ratio, 4.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-13.33; P = 0.002).
conclusionsOne third of patients with pelvic floor disorders receiving care in an IPU used colocated ancillary services. Utilization does not differ between payment models.
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.