↓ Skip to main content

Methodological considerations in cost of illness studies on Alzheimer disease

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
182 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
Methodological considerations in cost of illness studies on Alzheimer disease
Published in
Health Economics Review, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/2191-1991-2-18
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nagede Costa, Helene Derumeaux, Thomas Rapp, Valérie Garnault, Laura Ferlicoq, Sophie Gillette, Sandrine Andrieu, Bruno Vellas, Michel Lamure, Alain Grand, Laurent Molinier

Abstract

Cost-of-illness studies (COI) can identify and measure all the costs of a particular disease, including the direct, indirect and intangible dimensions. They are intended to provide estimates about the economic impact of costly disease. Alzheimer disease (AD) is a relevant example to review cost of illness studies because of its costliness.The aim of this study was to review relevant published cost studies of AD to analyze the method used and to identify which dimension had to be improved from a methodological perspective. First, we described the key points of cost study methodology. Secondly, cost studies relating to AD were systematically reviewed, focussing on an analysis of the different methods used. The methodological choices of the studies were analysed using an analytical grid which contains the main methodological items of COI studies. Seventeen articles were retained. Depending on the studies, annual total costs per patient vary from $2,935 to $52, 954. The methods, data sources, and estimated cost categories in each study varied widely. The review showed that cost studies adopted different approaches to estimate costs of AD, reflecting a lack of consensus on the methodology of cost studies. To increase its credibility, closer agreement among researchers on the methodological principles of cost studies would be desirable.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 174 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 16%
Student > Master 28 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 14%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Other 40 22%
Unknown 27 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 31%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 23 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 39 21%
Unknown 35 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,173,418
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#131
of 421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,377
of 168,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
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 168,561 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them