Cargando…
Minimally important difference in cost savings: Is it possible to identify an MID for cost savings?
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 comm...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790477/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33437174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10742-020-00233-5 |
_version_ | 1783633433135677440 |
---|---|
author | Dooley, Mary Simpson, Annie N. Nietert, Paul J. Williams, Dunc Simpson, Kit N. |
author_facet | Dooley, Mary Simpson, Annie N. Nietert, Paul J. Williams, Dunc Simpson, Kit N. |
author_sort | Dooley, Mary |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 We used data from two (unpublished) studies to implement the MID estimation.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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7790477 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77904772021-01-08 Minimally important difference in cost savings: Is it possible to identify an MID for cost savings? Dooley, Mary Simpson, Annie N. Nietert, Paul J. Williams, Dunc Simpson, Kit N. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol Article 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. Springer US 2021-01-07 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7790477/ /pubmed/33437174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10742-020-00233-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Dooley, Mary Simpson, Annie N. Nietert, Paul J. Williams, Dunc Simpson, Kit N. Minimally important difference in cost savings: Is it possible to identify an MID for cost savings? |
title | Minimally important difference in cost savings: Is it possible to identify an MID for cost savings? |
title_full | Minimally important difference in cost savings: Is it possible to identify an MID for cost savings? |
title_fullStr | Minimally important difference in cost savings: Is it possible to identify an MID for cost savings? |
title_full_unstemmed | Minimally important difference in cost savings: Is it possible to identify an MID for cost savings? |
title_short | Minimally important difference in cost savings: Is it possible to identify an MID for cost savings? |
title_sort | minimally important difference in cost savings: is it possible to identify an mid for cost savings? |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790477/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33437174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10742-020-00233-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dooleymary minimallyimportantdifferenceincostsavingsisitpossibletoidentifyanmidforcostsavings AT simpsonannien minimallyimportantdifferenceincostsavingsisitpossibletoidentifyanmidforcostsavings AT nietertpaulj minimallyimportantdifferenceincostsavingsisitpossibletoidentifyanmidforcostsavings AT williamsdunc minimallyimportantdifferenceincostsavingsisitpossibletoidentifyanmidforcostsavings AT simpsonkitn minimallyimportantdifferenceincostsavingsisitpossibletoidentifyanmidforcostsavings |