ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Cost minimization analysis of digital-first healthcare pathways in primary care.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence, use cases, and implementation safeguards of large language models in primary care.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Economic burden of recurrent low back pain among working-age adults in Poland: a 3-year retrospective observational analysis.Frontiers in public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A retrospective, registry-based cost-minimization analysis assessing whether initiating minor acute primary care episodes via a digital-first pathway reduces costs compared to traditional care in a Finnish setting. Of 637,923 encounters, 64,969 eligible episodes were identified in five selected clinical presentations. After propensity score matching (19,697 pairs), mean episode costs were significantly lower in the digital-first pathway (€170.74) than in traditional care (€220.91), reflecting a 22.7% reduction (P < 0.001). Savings varied by clinical presentation, from 10.3% for respiratory infections to 52.5% for gastroenteritis (all P < 0.001). Digital care was associated with lower use of laboratory tests and imaging. Follow-up visits were generally fewer in the digital-first pathway, except for respiratory infections, which showed a slight increase. Sensitivity analyses with 7- and 30-day follow-up windows produced similar results. Overall, this study supports digital-first models as a cost-effective strategy for managing minor acute conditions in primary care.
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.