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.

55/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Costs and economics

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Plain-language summary

Costs/follow-up day distributions differed significantly across cognitive categories. Mean costs/follow-up days were 2.5 to 18 times higher for decedents versus survivors. Among all persons with MCI, <9% with any NH use accounted for 18% of all total annual medical + NH costs. Adjusted-between-category comparisons revealed significantly higher medical and medical + NH costs for MCI versus cognitively unimpaired. Cost-effectiveness for managing/modifying both MCI and dementia should consider end-of-life costs and NH-use intensity. Results can help inform cost-effectiveness models, predict future-care needs, and aid decision-making by individuals/providers/payers/policymakers.

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

APA 7th

Long, K. H., Smith, C., Petersen, R., Emerson, J., Ransom, J., Mielke, M. M., et al. (2022). Medical and nursing home costs: From cognitively unimpaired through dementia. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12400

Vancouver

Long KH, Smith C, Petersen R, Emerson J, Ransom J, Mielke MM, et al. Medical and nursing home costs: From cognitively unimpaired through dementia. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2022. doi:10.1002/alz.12400. PMID: 34482623.

BibTeX

@article{long2022-34482623,
  author  = {Long, Kirsten Hall and Smith, Carin and Petersen, Ronald and Emerson, Jane and Ransom, Jeanine and Mielke, Michelle M and Hass, Steven and Leibson, Cynthia},
  title   = {{Medical and nursing home costs: From cognitively unimpaired through dementia}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1002/alz.12400},
  pmid    = {34482623},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12400}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 3,545 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Costs/follow-up day distributions differed significantly across cognitive categories.
Mean costs/follow-up days were 2.5 to 18 times higher for decedents versus survivors.
Among all persons with MCI, <9% with any NH use accounted for 18% of all total annual medical + NH costs.
Adjusted-between-category comparisons revealed significantly higher medical and medical + NH costs for MCI versus cognitively unimpaired.
Cost-effectiveness for managing/modifying both MCI and dementia should consider end-of-life costs and NH-use intensity.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →

Study details

Participants3,545
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 55/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” 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	3 / 4	3,545 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
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 34482623)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	31 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100.
Total	55 / 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 →