ArticleHealth services research2021
An international comparison of long-term care trajectories and spending following hip fracture.
Article in Health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital health needs for long-term continuity care in older adult patients: a cross-sectional study under the "internet +" model.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Comparison of Management and Outcomes of Hip Fractures Among Low- and High-Income Patients in Six High-Income Countries.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Postsurgery paths and outcomes for hip fracture patients (POST-OP HIP PATHS): a population-based retrospective cohort study protocol.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Clinical implications of anticoagulant oral therapy in elderly patients with hip fracture.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- Developing a minimum common dataset for hip fracture audit to help countries set up national audits that can support international comparisons.The bone & joint journal · 2022Article
- Variation in revascularisation use and outcomes of patients in hospital with acute myocardial infarction across six high income countries: cross sectional cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Article
- An international comparison of long-term care trajectories and spending following hip fracture.Health services research · 2021Article
- International comparison of patient care trajectories: Insights from the ICCONIC project.Health services research · 2021Article
- A methodology for identifying high-need, high-cost patient personas for international comparisons.Health services research · 2021Article
- How can we make valid and useful comparisons of different health care systems?Health services research · 2021Article
- International comparison of spending and utilization at the end of life for hip fracture patients.Health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objectives of this study are to compare the relative use of different postacute care settings in different countries and to compare three important outcomes as follows: total expenditure, total days of care in different care settings, and overall longevity over a 1-year period following a hip fracture. DATA SOURCES: We used administrative data from hospitals, institutional and home-based long-term care (LTC), physician visits, and medications compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) from five countries as follows: Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. DATA EXTRACTION
methodsData were extracted from existing administrative data systems in each participating country. STUDY
designThis is a retrospective cohort study of all individuals admitted to acute care for hip fracture. Descriptive comparisons were used to examine aggregate institutional and home-based postacute care. Care trajectories were created to track sequential care settings after acute-care discharge through institutional and community-based care in three countries where detailed information allowed. Comparisons in patient characteristics, utilization, and costs were made across these trajectories and countries. PRINCIPAL
findingsAcross five countries with complete LTC data, we found notable variations with Germany having the highest days of home-based services with relatively low costs, while Sweden incurred the highest overall expenditures. Comparisons of trajectories found that France had the highest use of inpatient rehabilitation. Germany was most likely to discharge hip fracture patients to home. Over 365 days, France averaged the highest number of days in institution with 104, Canada followed at 94, and Germany had just 87 days of institutional care on average.
conclusionIn this comparison of LTC services following a hip fracture, we found international differences in total use of institutional and noninstitutional care, longevity, and total expenditures. There exist opportunities to organize postacute care differently to maximize independence and mitigate costs.
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.