ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Can patient-reported data improve predictions about who will be a high-need, high-cost patient in British Columbia?
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeImproving the outcomes for high-need, high-cost (HNHC) patients requires accurately predicting who will become an HNHC patient. The objectives of this study are to: (1) develop models to predict individuals at risk of becoming future HNHC patients, and (2) compare the performance of predictive models with and without patient-reported data.
methodsWe used data from two patient-reported surveys datasets from British Columbia, Canada (inpatient and emergency department (ED) surveys) and linked administrative data. Our outcome was being an HNHC patient in the year following survey completion (i.e., incurring costs in the top 5% of the population). We compared two predictor sets, including a standard set (demographic, clinical, and resource use/cost) and an enhanced set (which included patient-reported data), across five model types. We assessed performance using measures of discrimination (c-statistic, and cost capture) calibration (calibration curve), and clinical usefulness (decision curve analysis).
resultsOur final sample size was 11,964 for the inpatient survey and 11,144 for the ED survey. Models exhibited good discrimination and calibration. The addition of patient-reported data improved discrimination as measured by the c-statistic (from 0.83, 95% CI: 0.77-0.86 to 0.85, 95% CI: 0.80-0.88 for the logistic regression model from the ED survey), and cost capture (from 0.52, 95% CI: 0.40-0.67 to 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48-0.76). The decision curve analysis demonstrated that the enhanced models provided the highest net benefit across a range of thresholds.
conclusionPatient-reported data improved the discriminative performance of models to predict HNHC patients, particularly for those with the highest health care costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40632370What 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.