Trial reportBMC health services research2025
Differences in health care costs between two social health support programs: findings from a randomized social health integration pilot program.
Trial report 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMore health systems are implementing strategies to understand and address patient social health, also known as social health integration. We examine the impact of a pilot social health integration program in two primary care clinics in an integrated health care system on health care costs.
methodsWe randomized 534 patients who reported any social need between October 2022 - January 2023 to receive support from a centralized Connections Call Center (CCC) or clinic-based Community Resource Specialists (CRS). We used administrative and claims data to compare costs between programs incurred by the health care system over 9 months. Using an intent-to-treat approach, we used two-part models to estimate costs for behavioral health, emergency department, inpatient admissions, and urgent care. We estimated single-part models using generalized linear models for primary care, specialty care, and total costs. Our secondary as-treated analyses compared costs among those who received support from CRS to those who did not.
resultsUnadjusted results showed no significant differences between CRS and CCC participants. Adjusted findings showed that CRS participants had $286 higher primary care costs than CCC participants (95% CI: $63.61, $508.89). As-treated findings showed that those who received CRS assistance had $2,356 more specialty care costs (95% CI: $229, $4,482) than those who did not.
conclusionsObserved changes in primary and specialty care costs may be a result of increasing engagement with the health system that could support patients in managing their health and prevent avoidable utilization in the long-term. These findings can help inform others who are interested in adopting similar primary care interventions.
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.