2014
DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2014.959588
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Retrospective database study to assess the economic impact of hip fracture in the United Kingdom

Abstract: Although we did not capture all pre- and post-index costs and healthcare utilization, this study provides important insights regarding the characteristics of patients with hip fracture, and information that will be useful in burden-of-illness and economic analyses.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
8
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
8
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The percentage of patients undergoing treatment for osteoporosis with specific agents (16.7 %) or with calcium plus vitamin D (29.6 %) after hip fracture is worryingly small. These percentages are nevertheless in line with international results [7,10,17,19] and emphasize the urgent need for strategies to improve the management of osteoporosis after fracture.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…The percentage of patients undergoing treatment for osteoporosis with specific agents (16.7 %) or with calcium plus vitamin D (29.6 %) after hip fracture is worryingly small. These percentages are nevertheless in line with international results [7,10,17,19] and emphasize the urgent need for strategies to improve the management of osteoporosis after fracture.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…Also, one study estimated the marginal 1-year costs to be £4222 higher per women with hip fracture compared to women without hip fracture [ 15 ] which is considerably lower than what we found in our study. In contrast, a recent UK study, based on 8208 patients, estimated the index hospitalisation cost of a hip fracture to be similar to our estimates (£8330) [ 20 ] and the 1-year costs to be £12,475 higher compared to the year pre-fracture, which is slightly higher than our estimate (£10,860). However, the sample used in this study was younger than the typical UK hip fracture population, with the broader inclusion criteria (ICD-10: S72.0–S72.9 and M84.4, all ages, all admissions) resulting in a patient sample with a lower age at admission (mean 79 years) compared to our cohort (83 years) and the UK hip fracture audit data [ 21 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 50%
“…However, the sample used in this study was younger than the typical UK hip fracture population, with the broader inclusion criteria (ICD-10: S72.0–S72.9 and M84.4, all ages, all admissions) resulting in a patient sample with a lower age at admission (mean 79 years) compared to our cohort (83 years) and the UK hip fracture audit data [ 21 ]. Furthermore, the proportion of patients with dementia at index fracture was considerably lower than in our cohort (12 vs. 18 %), suggesting that patients admitted from a care home may have been unrepresented, which may also explain the small proportion of patients being discharged to a care home following hip fracture (4.4 % vs. 18.0 % in our study) [ 20 ]. Hence, our study contributes significantly to the evidence base regarding hip fractures by identifying and following a population of 33,172 patients with hip fractures up to 2 years before and after the index event.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…However, although the outpatient dataset has been used in research (e.g. [19][20][21]), and for costing purposes in particular [22], we are not aware of any health economic RCT-based applications to date.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%