Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37214536›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2023

The potential impact of introducing a cost tool to facilitate cost-of-care conversations in routine OB care: Lessons from the CONTINUE pilot study.

Veronica Fitzpatrick, Kim Erwin, Anne Rivelli, Maureen Shields, Leah Delfinado, Marie Cabiya, Karen Wennerberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Veronica FitzpatrickAdvocate Aurora Research Institute, Downers Grove, IL, USA.
Kim ErwinIllinois Institute of Technology Institute of Design, Chicago, IL, USA.
Anne RivelliAdvocate Aurora Research Institute, Downers Grove, IL, USA.
Maureen ShieldsAdvocate Aurora Research Institute, Downers Grove, IL, USA.
Leah DelfinadoAdvocate Aurora Health; Downers Grove, IL, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Marie CabiyaAdvocate Aurora Health; Downers Grove, IL, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Karen WennerbergAdvocate Aurora Health; Downers Grove, IL, Milwaukee, WI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the CONTINUE study is to gather preliminary data on the potential impact of implementing a "Cost Tool" in routine obstetrics (OB) care. It is hypothesized that by providing prenatal patients with an ability to forecast their care plan, they would be better able to anticipate and plan for the costs associated with their prenatal care. Methods: Pilot data from interviews and surveys were collected from 71 prenatal patients across three clinics throughout Chicago, IL. Results: As compared to privately insured prenatal patients, prenatal patients with public insurance reported the most benefit in Cost Tool use. Specifically, that the Cost Tool helped to navigate insurance more effectively (OR 4.49, p=0.0254), see the "Big Picture" and link it to the family budget (OR 4.25, p=0.0099), and make the financial tradeoffs needed to get through pregnancy (OR 5.50, p=0.0305). Conclusion: The CONTINUE study provides preliminary signals of the Cost Tool's potential to help publicly insured prenatal patients better navigate the costs associated with their care plan. Innovations: The CONTINUE study contributes valuable preliminary data about the utility of a cost tool in routine OB care, especially as it may benefit low-income prenatal patients navigate prenatal care better.

Indexed as

Cost-of-Care ConversationsMaternal Child HealthOBVulnerable Populations

Identifiers

PMID37214536
PMCPMC10194338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.