↓ Skip to main content

BMJ

Effects of health and social care spending constraints on mortality in England: a time trend analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 26,231)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
51 news outlets
blogs
16 blogs
policy
5 policy sources
twitter
3991 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 Mendeley
Title
Effects of health and social care spending constraints on mortality in England: a time trend analysis
Published in
BMJ Open, November 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017722
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johnathan Watkins, Wahyu Wulaningsih, Charlie Da Zhou, Dominic C Marshall, Guia D C Sylianteng, Phyllis G Dela Rosa, Viveka A Miguel, Rosalind Raine, Lawrence P King, Mahiben Maruthappu

Abstract

Since 2010, England has experienced relative constraints in public expenditure on healthcare (PEH) and social care (PES). We sought to determine whether these constraints have affected mortality rates. We collected data on health and social care resources and finances for England from 2001 to 2014. Time trend analyses were conducted to compare the actual mortality rates in 2011-2014 with the counterfactual rates expected based on trends before spending constraints. Fixed-effects regression analyses were conducted using annual data on PES and PEH with mortality as the outcome, with further adjustments for macroeconomic factors and resources. Analyses were stratified by age group, place of death and lower-tier local authority (n=325). Mortality rates to 2020 were projected based on recent trends. Spending constraints between 2010 and 2014 were associated with an estimated 45 368 (95% CI 34 530 to 56 206) higher than expected number of deaths compared with pre-2010 trends. Deaths in those aged ≥60 and in care homes accounted for the majority. PES was more strongly linked with care home and home mortality than PEH, with each £10 per capita decline in real PES associated with an increase of 5.10 (3.65-6.54) (p<0.001) care home deaths per 100 000. These associations persisted in lag analyses and after adjustment for macroeconomic factors. Furthermore, we found that changes in real PES per capita may be linked to mortality mostly via changes in nurse numbers. Projections to 2020 based on 2009-2014 trend was cumulatively linked to an estimated 152 141 (95% CI 134 597 and 169 685) additional deaths. Spending constraints, especially PES, are associated with a substantial mortality gap. We suggest that spending should be targeted on improving care delivered in care homes and at home; and maintaining or increasing nurse numbers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3,991 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 201 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 11%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 9%
Other 11 5%
Other 38 19%
Unknown 53 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 20%
Social Sciences 29 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 4%
Other 38 19%
Unknown 65 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2877. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2024.
All research outputs
#2,444
of 26,154,612 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#2
of 26,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24
of 339,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#1
of 610 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,154,612 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 26,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,449 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 610 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.