↓ Skip to main content

Tweedie distributions for fitting semicontinuous health care utilization cost data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Tweedie distributions for fitting semicontinuous health care utilization cost data
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0445-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph F. Kurz

Abstract

The statistical analysis of health care cost data is often problematic because these data are usually non-negative, right-skewed and have excess zeros for non-users. This prevents the use of linear models based on the Gaussian or Gamma distribution. A common way to counter this is the use of Two-part or Tobit models, which makes interpretation of the results more difficult. In this study, I explore a statistical distribution from the Tweedie family of distributions that can simultaneously model the probability of zero outcome, i.e. of being a non-user of health care utilization and continuous costs for users. I assess the usefulness of the Tweedie model in a Monte Carlo simulation study that addresses two common situations of low and high correlation of the users and the non-users of health care utilization. Furthermore, I compare the Tweedie model with several other models using a real data set from the RAND health insurance experiment. I show that the Tweedie distribution fits cost data very well and provides better fit, especially when the number of non-users is low and the correlation between users and non-users is high. The Tweedie distribution provides an interesting solution to many statistical problems in health economic analyses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Professor 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 3 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 20%
Unspecified 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 5 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,355,886
of 13,532,815 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#389
of 1,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,181
of 263,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,532,815 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 263,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them