ArticleBMC health services research2025
Validation of the Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) in China.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPost-acute care is rapidly developing in China; yet, a payment method for post-acute care has not been established. The Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) is a new case-mix system developed in the United States of America for classification of skilled nursing facility patients. This study aimed to examine the validity of an adapted version of PDPM for classifying post-acute care patients in China.
methodsFirst, 13,496 post-acute care patients in seven facilities of Jinhua City from January 2018 to December 2020 were sampled and assigned to PDPM groups according to their clinical characteristics, functional status, and special care needs. Then, the effectiveness of grouping was analyzed by the percentage of variance in resource use explained by the classification (R
resultsUnder the adapted version of PDPM, each patient is classified into a group for each of the four case-mix adjusted components: (1) physical therapy and occupational therapy (PT&OT), (2) speech-language pathology (SLP), (3) nursing, and (4) non-therapy ancillary (NTA). Each component utilizes different criteria for classification. The adapted PDPM explained 11.1%, 6.1%, 14.0%, and 10.6% of the variance in PT&OT, SLP, nursing, and NTA cost per day, respectively, for the sample patients (all p < 0.001), which were similar to the results in the United States of America. The CV achieved good homogeneity in 10 PT&OT groups (CV: 0.17-0.69), 12 nursing groups (CV: 0.09-0.66), and 6 NTA groups (CV: 0.38-0.64). The CMIs of groups spanned a 9-fold range in PT&OT (CMI: 0.22-1.96), 11-fold range in nursing (CMI: 0.59-6.33), and 4-fold range in NTA (CMI: 0.72-2.91).
conclusionsOur findings provide preliminary evidence that the PDPM is a reliable and valid case-mix system for classifying post-acute care patients in China, which could inform future payment policy for post-acute care in China.
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.