Evaluation of bottom-up interventions targeting community-dwelling frail older people in Belgium: methodological challenges and lessons for future comparative effectiveness studies.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Belgium
Comparative Effectiveness Research
/ methods
Databases, Factual
Disabled Persons
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Forecasting
Frail Elderly
/ statistics & numerical data
Health Services Needs and Demand
Home Care Services
/ organization & administration
Humans
Independent Living
Long-Term Care
Male
Prospective Studies
Aging
Belgium
Bottom-up interventions
Comparative effectiveness studies
Stratification of population
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Jun 2019
24 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
04
04
2018
accepted:
10
06
2019
entrez:
26
6
2019
pubmed:
27
6
2019
medline:
19
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Optimizing the organization of care for community-dwelling frail older people is an important issue in many Western countries. In Belgium, a series of complex, innovative, bottom-up interventions was recently designed and implemented to help frail older people live at home longer. As the effectiveness of these interventions may vary between different population groups according to their long-term care needs, they must be evaluated by comparison with a control group that has similar needs. The goal was to identify target groups for these interventions and to establish control groups with similar needs and to explore, per group, the extent to which the utilization of long-term care is matched to needs. We merged two databases: a clinical prospective database and the routine administrative database for healthcare reimbursements. Through Principal Component Analysis followed by Clustering, the intervention group was first stratified into disability profiles. Per profile, comparable control groups for clinical variables were established, based on propensity scores. Using chi-squared tests and logistic regression analysis, long-term care utilization at baseline was then compared per profile and group studied. Stratification highlighted five disability profiles: people with low-level limitations; people with limitations in instrumental activities of daily life and low-level of cognitive impairment; people with functional limitations; people with functional and cognitive impairments; and people with functional, cognitive, and behavioral problems. These profiles made it possible to identify long-term care needs. For instance, at baseline, those who needed more assistance with hygiene tasks also received more personal nursing care (P < 0.05). However, there were some important discrepancies between the need for long-term care and its utilization: while 21% of patients who were totally dependent for hygiene tasks received no personal nursing care, personal nursing care was received by 33% of patients who could perform hygiene tasks. The disability profiles provide information on long-term care needs but not on the extent to which those needs are met. To assess the effectiveness of interventions, controls at baseline should have similar disability profiles and comparable long-term care utilization. To allow for large comparative effectiveness studies, these dimensions should ideally be available in routine databases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Optimizing the organization of care for community-dwelling frail older people is an important issue in many Western countries. In Belgium, a series of complex, innovative, bottom-up interventions was recently designed and implemented to help frail older people live at home longer. As the effectiveness of these interventions may vary between different population groups according to their long-term care needs, they must be evaluated by comparison with a control group that has similar needs.
METHODS
METHODS
The goal was to identify target groups for these interventions and to establish control groups with similar needs and to explore, per group, the extent to which the utilization of long-term care is matched to needs. We merged two databases: a clinical prospective database and the routine administrative database for healthcare reimbursements. Through Principal Component Analysis followed by Clustering, the intervention group was first stratified into disability profiles. Per profile, comparable control groups for clinical variables were established, based on propensity scores. Using chi-squared tests and logistic regression analysis, long-term care utilization at baseline was then compared per profile and group studied.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Stratification highlighted five disability profiles: people with low-level limitations; people with limitations in instrumental activities of daily life and low-level of cognitive impairment; people with functional limitations; people with functional and cognitive impairments; and people with functional, cognitive, and behavioral problems. These profiles made it possible to identify long-term care needs. For instance, at baseline, those who needed more assistance with hygiene tasks also received more personal nursing care (P < 0.05). However, there were some important discrepancies between the need for long-term care and its utilization: while 21% of patients who were totally dependent for hygiene tasks received no personal nursing care, personal nursing care was received by 33% of patients who could perform hygiene tasks.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The disability profiles provide information on long-term care needs but not on the extent to which those needs are met. To assess the effectiveness of interventions, controls at baseline should have similar disability profiles and comparable long-term care utilization. To allow for large comparative effectiveness studies, these dimensions should ideally be available in routine databases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31234857
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4240-9
pii: 10.1186/s12913-019-4240-9
pmc: PMC6592000
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
416Références
Int J Epidemiol. 1999 Feb;28(1):10-8
pubmed: 10195658
BMJ. 1999 Apr 24;318(7191):1108-11
pubmed: 10213718
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999 Nov;54(11):M546-53
pubmed: 10619316
Age Ageing. 2000 Mar;29(2):165-72
pubmed: 10791452
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001 Mar;56(3):M146-56
pubmed: 11253156
Health Care Financ Rev. 1999 Summer;20(4):67-85
pubmed: 11482125
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002 Jun;50(6):1045-50
pubmed: 12110064
Gerontologist. 2003 Feb;43(1):121-7
pubmed: 12604753
Acad Emerg Med. 2003 Dec;10(12):1362-70
pubmed: 14644789
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004 Mar;59(3):255-63
pubmed: 15031310
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Apr;58(4):323-37
pubmed: 15862718
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;20(6):537-46
pubmed: 15920707
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2006 Mar-Apr;42(2):191-206
pubmed: 16125809
Age Ageing. 2006 Sep;35(5):526-9
pubmed: 16757522
Am J Emerg Med. 2006 Jul;24(4):428-34
pubmed: 16787800
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Aug;82(2):143-56
pubmed: 17554243
J Public Health (Oxf). 2007 Dec;29(4):463-71
pubmed: 17942850
CMAJ. 2007 Nov 20;177(11):1362-8
pubmed: 18025427
J Health Econ. 2009 Jan;28(1):143-54
pubmed: 18950879
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Dec;56(12):2298-303
pubmed: 19093929
BMC Geriatr. 2009 Feb 03;9:6
pubmed: 19192295
Br J Gen Pract. 2009 May;59(562):e177-82
pubmed: 19401013
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1053-61
pubmed: 19744292
Med Care. 2009 Nov;47(11):1156-63
pubmed: 19786914
Age Ageing. 2010 Jan;39(1):31-8
pubmed: 19934075
Int J Integr Care. 2010 Jan 29;10 Suppl:e025
pubmed: 20228922
Med Care Res Rev. 2011 Apr;68(2):131-55
pubmed: 20829235
Health Syst Transit. 2010;12(5):1-266, xxv
pubmed: 21224177
J Health Econ. 2011 Mar;30(2):425-38
pubmed: 21295364
Eur J Public Health. 2012 Oct;22(5):671-7
pubmed: 21908861
J Nutr Health Aging. 2011 Aug;15(8):645-60
pubmed: 21968859
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012 Sep-Oct;55(2):399-405
pubmed: 22225577
BMC Public Health. 2012 Aug 06;12:615
pubmed: 22867442
Biol Res Nurs. 2013 Oct;15(4):422-32
pubmed: 23086382
Ageing Soc. 2009 Jan;29(1):71-91
pubmed: 23316096
Health Policy. 2013 Jul;111(2):105-9
pubmed: 23664776
J Eval Clin Pract. 2013 Oct;19(5):968-75
pubmed: 23910956
BMC Public Health. 2013 Oct 30;13:1030
pubmed: 24172142
Ageing Res Rev. 2014 May;15:76-93
pubmed: 24675045
BMC Geriatr. 2014 May 28;14:70
pubmed: 24884813
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014 Jun 06;14:48
pubmed: 24906941
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015 Feb;16(2):173.e1-10
pubmed: 25512214
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Jan 22;15:23
pubmed: 25609174
BMC Geriatr. 2015 Jun 18;15:67
pubmed: 26084701
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 15;6(4):e010301
pubmed: 27084274
BMC Med. 2016 Nov 25;14(1):196
pubmed: 27884150
BMC Geriatr. 2017 Feb 14;17(1):53
pubmed: 28196486
Eur J Ageing. 2008 Dec 9;6(1):3-15
pubmed: 28798587
J Health Soc Behav. 1995 Mar;36(1):1-10
pubmed: 7738325
J Gerontol. 1994 Jul;49(4):M174-82
pubmed: 8014392
Med Decis Making. 1995 Oct-Dec;15(4):333-47
pubmed: 8544677