Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Costs and economics

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Plain-language summary

This retrospective cohort study described changes in all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs in dementia patients newly diagnosed with psychosis. Dementia and incident psychosis were identified using diagnostic and pharmacy claims using a Medicare 20% random sample dataset. All-cause HCRU and unweighted and weighted (by person-years of follow-up) HCRU-associated costs were evaluated in the year prior to and the 4 years following diagnosis of psychosis. In 49,509 dementia patients with psychosis, physician visits per patient per year increased from a mean of 26.7 (standard deviation (SD) 20.0) prior to psychosis to 38.4 (SD 41.9) post-psychosis diagnosis. The number of inpatient stay claims increased from 1.0 (SD 1.4) to 1.7 (SD 5.8). Mean unweighted costs for inpatient stays and home healthcare/hospice during 2008-2016 were USD 9989 and USD 3279 prior to a diagnosis of psychosis but increased to USD 25,982 and USD 9901 (weighted: USD 11,779 and USD 6709), respectively, in the year after a psychosis diagnosis. This pattern of a sharp increase in mean costs was also observed in costs adjusted to 2015 USD, and in both unweighted and weighted total and psychosis-related costs. These results indicate the importance of identifying newly diagnosed psychosis in dementia patients as well as the pressing need for management strategies and treatments that can reduce HCRU and costs.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Rashid, N., Wetmore, J. B., Irfan, M., & Abler, V. (2022). Economic Evaluation of Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs for Newly Diagnosed Dementia-Related Psychosis. Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics7020029

Vancouver

Rashid N, Wetmore JB, Irfan M, Abler V. Economic Evaluation of Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs for Newly Diagnosed Dementia-Related Psychosis. Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland). 2022. doi:10.3390/geriatrics7020029. PMID: 35314601.

BibTeX

@article{rashid2022-35314601,
  author  = {Rashid, Nazia and Wetmore, James B and Irfan, Muna and Abler, Victor},
  title   = {{Economic Evaluation of Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs for Newly Diagnosed Dementia-Related Psychosis}},
  journal = {Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland)},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.3390/geriatrics7020029},
  pmid    = {35314601},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics7020029}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 57/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 32 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 57 of 100. Total 57 of 100.32 of the 56 points we could judge = 57 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland))
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 3 / 5 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35314601)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 32 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100.
Total 57 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Costs and economics from nearby years

Also tagged “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Costs and economics

See all studies in Costs and economics →