↓ Skip to main content

A cost-utility analysis of a rehabilitation service for people living with and beyond cancer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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 cost-utility analysis of a rehabilitation service for people living with and beyond cancer
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12913-014-0558-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeff Round, Baptiste Leurent, Louise Jones

Abstract

BackgroundWe conducted a wait-list control randomised trial of an outpatient rehabilitation service for people living with and beyond cancer, delivered in a hospice day care unit. We report the results of an economic evaluation undertaken using the trial data.MethodsForty-one participants were recruited into the study. A within-trial stochastic cost-utility analysis was undertaken using Monte-Carlo simulation. The outcome measure for the economic evaluation was quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were measured from the perspective of the NHS and personal social services. Uncertainty in the observed data was captured through probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Scenario analysis was conducted to explore the effects of changing the way QALYs were estimated and adjusting for baseline difference in the population. We also explore assumptions about the length of treatment benefit being maintained.ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the base-case analysis was £14,231 per QALY. When QALYs were assumed to change linearly over time, this increased to £20,514 per QALY at three months. Adjusting the estimate of QALYs to account for differences in the population at baseline increased the ICER to £94,748 per QALY at three months. Increasing the assumed length of treatment benefit led to reduced ICERs in all scenarios.ConclusionsAlthough the intervention is likely to be cost-effective in some circumstances, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the decision to implement the service. Further research, informed by a formal value of information analysis, would reduce this uncertainty.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 22%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 7%
Unspecified 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 9 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,732,540
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,274
of 7,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,140
of 362,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#111
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 362,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.