Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38747983›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2024

[Health economic evaluation of rehabilitative short-term care : Analysis of the costs of geriatric patients with and without rehabilitative short-term care after inpatient hospital stay].

S Diekmann, P Zur Nieden, K Pahmeier, J Frankenhauser-Mannuß, A Keilhauer, N Specht-Leible, J Bauer, T Hüer, P Raszke, A Walendzik and 2 more

Abstract readControlled Clinical TrialEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors.

S DiekmannEssener Forschungsinstitut für Medizinmanagement (EsFoMed) GmbH, Essen, Deutschland.
P Zur NiedenEssener Forschungsinstitut für Medizinmanagement (EsFoMed) GmbH, Essen, Deutschland.
K PahmeierEssener Forschungsinstitut für Medizinmanagement (EsFoMed) GmbH, Essen, Deutschland.
J Frankenhauser-MannußUnternehmensbereich Versorgungsgestaltung, Geschäftsbereich Versorgungsinnovationen & sektorenübergreifende Versorgungslösungen, AOK Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, Deutschland.
A KeilhauerGeriatrisches Zentrum, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, AGAPLESION Bethanien Krankenhaus Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
N Specht-LeibleGeriatrisches Zentrum, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, AGAPLESION Bethanien Krankenhaus Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
J BauerGeriatrisches Zentrum, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, AGAPLESION Bethanien Krankenhaus Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
T HüerLehrstuhl für Medizinmanagement, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann-Str. 9, 45127, Essen, Deutschland.
P RaszkeLehrstuhl für Medizinmanagement, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann-Str. 9, 45127, Essen, Deutschland.
A WalendzikLehrstuhl für Medizinmanagement, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann-Str. 9, 45127, Essen, Deutschland.
J WasemLehrstuhl für Medizinmanagement, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann-Str. 9, 45127, Essen, Deutschland.
A NeumannEssener Forschungsinstitut für Medizinmanagement (EsFoMed) GmbH, Essen, Deutschland. Anja.Neumann@medman.uni-due.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeriatric patients requiring rehabilitation and admitted to short-term care after an acute inpatient hospital stay seldom receive rehabilitative services later. Rehabilitative short-term care (REKUP) supplements short-term care with rehabilitative measures, aiming to prevent functional restrictions and long-term care. STUDY

objectiveTo conduct a cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of REKUP and provide data for a nationwide rollout. MATERIAL AND

methodsA non-randomized controlled prospective study was carried out. The intervention group (IG) was paired 1:2 with a control group (KG), resulting in the formation of three collectives with follow-up periods of either 30, 90 or 180 days (each with IG and KG). Using administrative claims data from the AOK Baden-Württemberg, the mean total costs from the perspective of the health insurance were calculated. A potential impact of the intervention on costs was analyzed using the difference in differences approach.

resultsThe analysis comprised 129 patients (IG 43; KG 86). During the follow-up periods, the IG presented higher rates of rehabilitation and lower rates of long-term care and mortality. Regarding costs, no statistically significant differences were found between the IG and KG in any of the three collectives. For nursing care and medication costs, costs were significantly higher in the follow-up period for the KG, whereas costs for rehabilitation were significantly higher for the IG (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Patients receiving REKUP utilize rehabilitation services more often and have a lower likelihood of requiring nursing care or dying with no statistically significant differences in costs. There are potential advantages of REKUP in the target population, which warrant further investigation due to methodological limitations.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHealth Care CostsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGermanyHealth Services for the AgedHospitalizationHumansLength of StayMalePrevalenceRehabilitationTreatment OutcomeAnalysis of costsGeriatricsHealth administrative dataPost-inpatient careRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID38747983
PMCPMC11422432

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.