ArticleBMC health services research2025
Development of a healthcare utilisation index to compare patients worldwide: a cross-sectional study.
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. 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.
- 30-day healthcare utilisation after discharge from four General Internal Medicine departments in Switzerland: a prospective observational cohort study.BMC health services research · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no simple tool for synthesising the total volume of different healthcare services a patient utilizes into a single meaningful measure. We aimed to develop such an instrument and explore its associations with two broad health indicators: mortality and life expectancy.
methodWe constructed the Healthcare Utilisation (HUTIL) index to sum the weighted volume of healthcare services used over a given period. Each healthcare service's weighting was calculated using worldwide median ratios between that service's costs and those of a consultation with a primary care physician (PCP). Data were obtained from the literature and internet searches. Next, we calculated the annual average HUTIL index per capita for European countries by collecting data available from their statistical offices and the European Union. Life expectancy at birth and mortality rates per 100,000 inhabitants were used to compare countries with HUTIL index scores above and below the continental median.
resultsIn 63 countries worldwide, ratios of healthcare costs to PCP costs were 2 (IQR: 2-3) for a consultation with a specialist, 4 (IQR: 2-6) for an emergency department consultation, 0.5 (IQR: 0.4-0.8) for a home visit by a nurse and 8 (IQR: 4-17) for a day spent in hospital. Using these weigthing factors, an annual average HUTIL index per capita was calculated for 26 European countries. Countries with HUTIL index scores above the continental median had higher mortality rates (1047 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants [IQR: 979-1321] vs. 889 [IQR: 778-930]; p < 0.01) and lower life expectancy (78.2 years [IQR: 76.1-81.3] vs. 82.0 [IQR: 81.5-82.6]; p = 0.01) than countries with lower HUTIL index scores.
conclusionsHealthcare cost ratios were remarkably constant around the world. Based on these ratios, the HUTIL index could become a new, globally applicable tool to facilitate future research into healthcare services utilisation.
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.