ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Healthcare utilization and cost of care for a multidisciplinary integrated practice unit model of spine rehabilitation compared to standard or no physical therapy.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To compare healthcare utilization and cost in individuals with spine pain who undergo no physical therapy, standard physical therapy, or physical therapy in an integrated practice unit model. Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting: Multi-site outpatient physical therapy clinics within a single metropolitan region. Participants: Individuals with de-identified claims data from a single insurance provider under Medicare Advantage with a spine-pain related diagnosis from January 2019-December 2021. Interventions: Patients were categorized into three cohorts: No physical therapy (NoPT), standard physical therapy (SPT), and physical therapy within an integrated practice unit model (IPUPT) based on their physical therapy history during the data collection period. Main Outcome Measures: Number and percentage of patients reporting claims, number of claims/patient per year, paid amount, and number of RVUs were compared across groups using chi-square or one-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons corrections. Results: Data from 13,569 patients was included in this study. The number of patients with spine-related inpatient claims was highest in the SPT group (2.8%) compared to the IPUPT (1.5%) and NoPT (1.3%) groups (p=0.004). Outpatient care utilization was driven by radiology (54.7%) and laboratory (22.1%) claims and was lowest in the IPUPT group (N=1,096; 56.8%) compared to the SPT group (N=1,654; 68.3%) and NoPT group (N=9,150; 99.3%, p<0.001). The SPT group was most costly per person ($2,243.66(11,048.94)) followed by the NoPT ($1,352.01(6,419.2), p<0.001) and the IPUPT ($1,259.88(9,061.23), p<0.001) groups. The greatest contributor to cost was outpatient procedures, averaging $142.39(1,046.26) per person. Conclusion: An integrated multidisciplinary rehabilitation model may be a cost-effective method of multimodal care in individuals with spine pain.
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.