ArticleBMJ open2022
What is the healthcare utilisation and out-of-pocket expenditure associated with osteoarthritis? A cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the use and out-of-pocket expenses resulting from consultations, products and practices across conventional, self-care, and complementary medicine (CM) treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) among Australian women. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsA cross-sectional survey of 800 women from the 45 and Up Study who had reported a clinical diagnosis of OA. OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's use of conventional, CM and self-prescribed treatments for OA and the associated out-of-pocket cost.
resultsCompleted questionnaires were returned by 403 women (50.4%). Their average time since the first diagnosis of OA was 15.4 years, and self-rated severity of OA was 5.1 (out of 10) over the past 12 months. During the previous year, 67.0% of the women consulted a doctor, 39.2% consulted an allied health practitioner and 34.7% consulted a CM practitioner for their OA. Some women (19%) consulted with practitioner(s) from all three practitioner groups, 27% consulted with practitioner(s) from two of the three practitioner groups, while 6% consulted with a CM practitioner only. Women with a greater time since diagnosis had more consultations, as did women who rated their OA as more severe. Women's average combined out-of-pocket expenditure for OA-related healthcare consultations, prescription medications, products, and practices was $673 per annum. Extrapolated to all Australian women with OA, aged 50 years and over, the total out-of-pocket expenditure for this condition is estimated to be $873 million per annum.
conclusionsAustralian women with OA use a range of conventional and CM consultations, self-care, products and practices to manage their condition, incurring significant out-of-pocket expenses. Given the high individual and societal burden of OA, there is a need for further research into the concurrent use of different healthcare resources with a view to providing safe, cost-effective management of OA across the healthcare system and the wider community.
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.