Cited by 294Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealthcare Policy and ManagementEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Microcosting Quantity Data Collection Methods

Open access
Frick, Kevin D.·2009·Medical Care

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Microcosting studies collect detailed data on resources used and the value of those resources. Such studies are useful for estimating the cost of new technologies or new community-based interventions, for producing estimates in studies that include nonmarket goods, and for studying within-procedure cost variation. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article were to (1) describe basic microcosting methods focusing on quantity data collection; and (2) suggest a research agenda to improve methods in and the interpretation of microcosting. RESEARCH DESIGN: Examples in the published literature were used to illustrate steps in the methods of gathering data (primarily quantity data) for a microcosting study. RESULTS: Quantity data collection methods that were illustrated in the literature include the use of (1) administrative databases at single facilities, (2) insurer administrative data, (3) forms applied across multiple settings, (4) an expert panel, (5) surveys or interviews of one or more types of providers; (6) review of patient charts, (7) direct observation, (8) personal digital assistants, (9) program operation logs, and (10) diary data. CONCLUSIONS: Future microcosting studies are likely to improve if research is done to compare the validity and cost of different data collection methods; if a critical review is conducted of studies done to date; and if the combination of the results of the first 2 steps described are used to develop guidelines that address common limitations, critical judgment points, and decisions that can reduce limitations and improve the quality of studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0b013e31819bc064

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frick, K. D.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Frick, Kevin D.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2009-07
Volume
47
Issue
7_Supplement_1
Pages
S76-S81
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101703186
Cited by
294
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
7.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (HHSN261200700356P)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
micro-costing, administrative databases, expert panel, provider survey, medical records review, direct observation, personal digital assistants, diary data, non-market goods, data validity
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Data Collection, Health Services Research, Health Surveys, Humans, Medical Records, Health Care Costs, Observation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review