↓ Skip to main content

A quantitative evidence base for population health: applying utilization-based cluster analysis to segment a patient population

Overview of attention for article published in Population Health Metrics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
A quantitative evidence base for population health: applying utilization-based cluster analysis to segment a patient population
Published in
Population Health Metrics, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12963-016-0115-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabine I. Vuik, Erik Mayer, Ara Darzi

Abstract

To improve population health it is crucial to understand the different care needs within a population. Traditional population groups are often based on characteristics such as age or morbidities. However, this does not take into account specific care needs across care settings and tends to focus on high-needs patients only. This paper explores the potential of using utilization-based cluster analysis to segment a general patient population into homogenous groups. Administrative datasets covering primary and secondary care were used to construct a database of 300,000 patients, which included socio-demographic variables, morbidities, care utilization, and cost. A k-means cluster analysis grouped the patients into segments with distinct care utilization, based on six utilization variables: non-elective inpatient admissions, elective inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, GP practice visits, GP home visits, and prescriptions. These segments were analyzed post-hoc to understand their morbidity and demographic profile. Eight population segments were identified, and utilization of each care setting was significantly different across all segments. Each segment also presented with different morbidity patterns and demographic characteristics, creating eight distinct care user types. Comparing these segments to traditional patient groups shows the heterogeneity of these approaches, especially for lower-needs patients. This analysis shows that utilization-based cluster analysis segments a patient population into distinct groups with unique care priorities, providing a quantitative evidence base to improve population health. Contrary to traditional methods, this approach also segments lower-needs populations, which can be used to inform preventive interventions. In addition, the identification of different care user types provides insight into needs across the care continuum.

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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 23%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Mathematics 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Decision Sciences 3 3%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 32 34%
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 07 December 2016.
All research outputs
#13,414,068
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#260
of 392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,982
of 415,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 415,669 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.