Minimally important difference in cost savings: Is it possible to identify an MID for cost savings?

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-01-07 DOI:10.1007/s10742-020-00233-5
Mary Dooley, Annie N Simpson, Paul J Nietert, Dunc Williams, Kit N Simpson
{"title":"Minimally important difference in cost savings: Is it possible to identify an MID for cost savings?","authors":"Mary Dooley,&nbsp;Annie N Simpson,&nbsp;Paul J Nietert,&nbsp;Dunc Williams,&nbsp;Kit N Simpson","doi":"10.1007/s10742-020-00233-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As healthcare costs continue to increase, studies assessing costs are becoming increasingly common, but researchers planning for studies that measure costs differences (savings) encounter a lack of literature or consensus among researchers on what constitutes \"small\" or \"large\" cost savings for common measures of resource use.  Other fields of research have developed approaches to solve this type of problem. Researchers measuring improvement in quality of life or clinical assessments have defined minimally important differences (MID) which are then used to define magnitudes when planning studies. Also, studies that measure cost effectiveness use benchmarks, such as cost/QALY, but do not provide benchmarks for cost differences. In a review of the literature, we found no publications identifying indicators of magnitude for costs. However, the literature describes three approaches used to identify minimally important outcome differences: (1) anchor-based, (2) distribution-based, and (3) a consensus-based Delphi methods. In this exploratory study, we used these three approaches to derive MID for two types of resource measures common in costing studies for: (1) hospital admissions (high cost); and (2) clinic visits (low cost). We used data from two (unpublished) studies to implement the MID estimation. Because the distributional characteristics of cost measures may require substantial samples, we performed power analyses on all our estimates to illustrate the effect that the definitions of \"small\" and \"large\" costs may be expected to have on power and sample size requirements for studies. The anchor-based method, while logical and simple to implement, may be of limited value in cases where it is difficult to identify appropriate anchors. We observed some commonalities and differences for the distribution and consensus-based approaches, which require further examination. We recommend that in cases where acceptable anchors are not available, both the Delphi and the distribution-method of MID for costs be explored for convergence.</p>","PeriodicalId":45600,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10742-020-00233-5","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-020-00233-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

As healthcare costs continue to increase, studies assessing costs are becoming increasingly common, but researchers planning for studies that measure costs differences (savings) encounter a lack of literature or consensus among researchers on what constitutes "small" or "large" cost savings for common measures of resource use.  Other fields of research have developed approaches to solve this type of problem. Researchers measuring improvement in quality of life or clinical assessments have defined minimally important differences (MID) which are then used to define magnitudes when planning studies. Also, studies that measure cost effectiveness use benchmarks, such as cost/QALY, but do not provide benchmarks for cost differences. In a review of the literature, we found no publications identifying indicators of magnitude for costs. However, the literature describes three approaches used to identify minimally important outcome differences: (1) anchor-based, (2) distribution-based, and (3) a consensus-based Delphi methods. In this exploratory study, we used these three approaches to derive MID for two types of resource measures common in costing studies for: (1) hospital admissions (high cost); and (2) clinic visits (low cost). We used data from two (unpublished) studies to implement the MID estimation. Because the distributional characteristics of cost measures may require substantial samples, we performed power analyses on all our estimates to illustrate the effect that the definitions of "small" and "large" costs may be expected to have on power and sample size requirements for studies. The anchor-based method, while logical and simple to implement, may be of limited value in cases where it is difficult to identify appropriate anchors. We observed some commonalities and differences for the distribution and consensus-based approaches, which require further examination. We recommend that in cases where acceptable anchors are not available, both the Delphi and the distribution-method of MID for costs be explored for convergence.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成本节约的最小差异:是否有可能确定成本节约的MID ?
随着医疗保健成本的持续增加,评估成本的研究变得越来越普遍,但研究人员计划进行测量成本差异(节约)的研究时,缺乏文献或研究人员之间就资源使用的常见措施的“小”或“大”成本节约构成的共识。其他研究领域已经开发出解决这类问题的方法。研究人员测量生活质量的改善或临床评估已经定义了最小重要差异(MID),然后在计划研究时用于确定大小。此外,测量成本有效性的研究使用基准,例如成本/质量aly,但不提供成本差异的基准。在文献回顾中,我们发现没有出版物确定成本的大小指标。然而,文献描述了用于识别最小重要结果差异的三种方法:(1)基于锚定的,(2)基于分布的,(3)基于共识的德尔菲方法。在这项探索性研究中,我们使用这三种方法来推导成本研究中常见的两种类型的资源度量的MID:(1)住院(高成本);(2)门诊就诊(费用低)。我们使用了两项(未发表的)研究的数据来实现MID估计。由于成本测量的分布特征可能需要大量的样本,我们对所有的估计进行了功率分析,以说明“小”和“大”成本的定义可能对研究的功率和样本量要求产生的影响。基于锚点的方法虽然符合逻辑且易于实现,但在难以确定适当锚点的情况下可能价值有限。我们观察到分布和基于共识的方法的一些共性和差异,这需要进一步研究。我们建议,在没有可接受的锚点的情况下,对成本的德尔菲法和MID的分布法都进行收敛探索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The journal reflects the multidisciplinary nature of the field of health services and outcomes research. It addresses the needs of multiple, interlocking communities, including methodologists in statistics, econometrics, social and behavioral sciences; designers and analysts of health policy and health services research projects; and health care providers and policy makers who need to properly understand and evaluate the results of published research. The journal strives to enhance the level of methodologic rigor in health services and outcomes research and contributes to the development of methodologic standards in the field. In pursuing its main objective, the journal also provides a meeting ground for researchers from a number of traditional disciplines and fosters the development of new quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods by statisticians, econometricians, health services researchers, and methodologists in other fields. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology publishes: Research papers on quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods; Case Studies describing applications of quantitative and qualitative methodology in health services and outcomes research; Review Articles synthesizing and popularizing methodologic developments; Tutorials; Articles on computational issues and software reviews; Book reviews; and Notices. Special issues will be devoted to papers presented at important workshops and conferences.
期刊最新文献
Limitations of the Inter-Unit Reliability: A Set of Practical Examples. Home- and community-based care in the new generation of Medicaid administrative data Entropy balancing versus vector-based kernel weighting for causal inference in categorical treatment settings A terminal trend model for longitudinal medical cost data and survival Multimodal mental state analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1