MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118819485 · doi:10.1186/s12962-021-00314-3

Can integrated care improve the efficiency of hospitals? Research based on 200 Hospitals in China

2021· article· en· W3118819485 on OpenAlexaff
Zixuan Peng, Li Zhu, Guangsheng Wan, Peter C. Coyte

Bibliographic record

VenueCost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisHealth administrationTobit modelHealth services researchHealth careConfoundingMedicineEfficiencyHealth informaticsEconometricsOperations managementStatisticsPublic healthNursingEconomicsMathematicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The shift towards integrated care (IC) represents a global trend towards more comprehensive and coordinated systems of care, particularly for vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. When health systems face fiscal constraints, integrated care has been advanced as a potential solution by simultaneously improving health service effectiveness and efficiency. This paper addresses the latter. There are three study objectives: first, to compare efficiency differences between IC and non-IC hospitals in China; second, to examine variations in efficiency among different types of IC hospitals; and finally, to explore whether the implementation of IC impacts hospital efficiency. METHODS: This study uses Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to calculate efficiency scores among a sample of 200 hospitals in H Province, China. Tobit regression analysis was performed to explore the influence of IC implementation on hospital efficiency scores after adjustment for potential confounding. Moreover, the association between various input and output variables and the implementation of IC was investigated using regression techniques. RESULTS: The study has four principal findings: first, IC hospitals, on average, are shown to be more efficient than non-IC hospitals after adjustment for covariates. Holding output constant, IC hospitals are shown to reduce their current input mix by 12% and 4% to achieve optimal efficiency under constant and variable returns-to-scale, respectively, while non-IC hospitals have to reduce their input mix by 26 and 20% to achieve the same level of efficiency; second, with respect to the efficiency of each type of IC, we show that higher efficiency scores are achieved by administrative and virtual IC models over a contractual IC model; third, we demonstrate that IC influences hospitals efficiency by impacting various input and output variables, such as length of stay, inpatient admissions, and staffing; fourth, while bed density per nurse was positively associated with hospital efficiency, the opposite was shown for bed density per physician. CONCLUSIONS: IC has the potential to promote hospital efficiency by influencing an array of input and output variables. Policies designed to facilitate the implementation of IC in hospitals need to be cognizant of the complex way IC impacts hospital efficiency.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCost Effectiveness and Resource AllocationSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207