↓ Skip to main content

Statistical methods and modelling techniques for analysing hospital readmission of discharged psychiatric patients: a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Statistical methods and modelling techniques for analysing hospital readmission of discharged psychiatric patients: a systematic literature review
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-1128-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Urach, Günther Zauner, Kristian Wahlbeck, Peija Haaramo, Niki Popper

Abstract

Psychiatric services have undergone profound changes over the last decades. CEPHOS-LINK is an EU-funded study project with the aim to compare readmission of patients discharged with psychiatric diagnoses using a registry-based observational record linkage study design and to analyse differences in the findings for five different countries. A range of different approaches is available for analysis of the available data. Although there are some studies that compare selected methods for evaluating questions on readmission, there are to our knowledge no published systematic literature reviews on commonly used methods and their comparison. This work shall therefore provide an overview of the methods in use, their evolution throughout history and new developments which can further improve the research quality in this area. Based on systematic literature reviews realized in the course of the CEPHOS-LINK study, this work is a systematic evaluation of mathematical (statistical and modelling) methods used in studies examining psychiatric readmission. The starting point were 502 papers, of which 407 were analysed in detail; Methods used were assigned to one of five categories with subcategories and analysed accordingly. Our particular interest next to survival analysis and regression models is modelling and simulation. As population sizes and follow-up times in the included studies varied widely, a range of methods was applied. Studies with bigger sample sizes conducted survival and regression analysis more often than studies with fewer patients did. These latter relied more on classical statistical tests (e.g. t-tests and Student Newman Keuls). Statistical strategies were often insufficiently described, posing a major problem for the evaluation. Almost all cases failed to provide and explanation of the rationale behind using certain methods. There is a discernible trend from classical parametric/nonparametric tests in older studies towards regression and survival analyses in more recent ones. Modelling and simulation were under-represented despite their high usability, as has been identified in other health applications and comparable research areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Engineering 7 13%
Psychology 7 13%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 10 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,730,464
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,614
of 4,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,182
of 419,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#44
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.