Evaluating an integrated care pathway for frail elderly patients in Norway using multi-criteria decision analysis.

Continuity of care Discrete choice experiment Frail elderly Holistic assessment Integrated care Mixed methods Multi-criteria decision analysis Multi-morbidity Primary care Quasi-experimental design

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:
28 Aug 2021
Historique:
received: 23 10 2020
accepted: 20 07 2021
entrez: 29 8 2021
pubmed: 30 8 2021
medline: 1 9 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To provide value-based care for patients with multi-morbidity, innovative integrated care programmes and comprehensive evaluations of such programmes are required. In Norway, a new programme called "Holistic Continuity of Patient Care" (HCPC) addresses the issue of multi-morbidity by providing integrated care within learning networks for frail elderly patients who receive municipal home care services or a short-term stay in a nursing home. This study conducts a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate whether the HCPC programme performs better on a large set of outcomes corresponding to the 'triple aim' compared to usual care. Prospective longitudinal survey data were collected at baseline and follow-up after 6-months. The assessment of HCPC was implemented by a novel MCDA framework. The relative weights of importance of the outcomes used in the MCDA were obtained from a discrete choice experiment among five different groups of stakeholders. The performance score was estimated using a quasi-experimental design and linear mixed methods. Performance scores were standardized and multiplied by their weights of importance to obtain the overall MCDA value by stakeholder group. At baseline in the HCPC and usual care groups, respectively, 120 and 89 patients responded, of whom 87 and 41 responded at follow-up. The average age at baseline was 80.0 years for HCPC and 83.6 for usual care. Matching reduced the standardized differences between the groups for patient background characteristics and outcome variables. The MCDA results indicated that HCPC was preferred to usual care irrespective of stakeholders. The better performance of HCPC was mostly driven by improvements in enjoyment of life, psychological well-being, and social relationships and participation. Results were consistent with sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation. Frail elderly with multi-morbidity represent complex health problems at large costs for society in terms of health- and social care. This study is a novel contribution to assessing and understanding HCPC programme performance respecting the multi-dimensionality of desired outcomes. Integrated care programmes like HCPC may improve well-being of patients, be cost-saving, and contribute to the pursuit of evidence based gradual reforms in the care of frail elderly.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
To provide value-based care for patients with multi-morbidity, innovative integrated care programmes and comprehensive evaluations of such programmes are required. In Norway, a new programme called "Holistic Continuity of Patient Care" (HCPC) addresses the issue of multi-morbidity by providing integrated care within learning networks for frail elderly patients who receive municipal home care services or a short-term stay in a nursing home. This study conducts a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate whether the HCPC programme performs better on a large set of outcomes corresponding to the 'triple aim' compared to usual care.
METHODS METHODS
Prospective longitudinal survey data were collected at baseline and follow-up after 6-months. The assessment of HCPC was implemented by a novel MCDA framework. The relative weights of importance of the outcomes used in the MCDA were obtained from a discrete choice experiment among five different groups of stakeholders. The performance score was estimated using a quasi-experimental design and linear mixed methods. Performance scores were standardized and multiplied by their weights of importance to obtain the overall MCDA value by stakeholder group.
RESULTS RESULTS
At baseline in the HCPC and usual care groups, respectively, 120 and 89 patients responded, of whom 87 and 41 responded at follow-up. The average age at baseline was 80.0 years for HCPC and 83.6 for usual care. Matching reduced the standardized differences between the groups for patient background characteristics and outcome variables. The MCDA results indicated that HCPC was preferred to usual care irrespective of stakeholders. The better performance of HCPC was mostly driven by improvements in enjoyment of life, psychological well-being, and social relationships and participation. Results were consistent with sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Frail elderly with multi-morbidity represent complex health problems at large costs for society in terms of health- and social care. This study is a novel contribution to assessing and understanding HCPC programme performance respecting the multi-dimensionality of desired outcomes. Integrated care programmes like HCPC may improve well-being of patients, be cost-saving, and contribute to the pursuit of evidence based gradual reforms in the care of frail elderly.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34454494
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06805-6
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-06805-6
pmc: PMC8400755
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

884

Subventions

Organisme : H2020 European Research Council
ID : 634288

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017 Dec;26(12):1483-1491
pubmed: 28696023
J Clin Nurs. 2019 Oct;28(19-20):3478-3491
pubmed: 31162855
J Health Soc Behav. 1978 Mar;19(1):2-21
pubmed: 649936
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Jan;58(1):13-9
pubmed: 15649666
Value Health. 2018 Apr;21(4):394-397
pubmed: 29680094
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Apr 17;17(1):275
pubmed: 28412943
BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 7;8(4):e021194
pubmed: 29627819
Age Ageing. 2016 May;45(3):431-5
pubmed: 27013499
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1391-9
pubmed: 21689904
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Apr 12;11:58
pubmed: 23587460
Value Health. 2016 Mar-Apr;19(2):125-37
pubmed: 27021745
Int J Integr Care. 2015 Jun 17;15:e024
pubmed: 26150762
Crit Care. 2017 Aug 21;21(1):220
pubmed: 28830479
Int J Integr Care. 2015 Sep 23;15:e021
pubmed: 26528096
Qual Life Res. 2008 Sep;17(7):967-76
pubmed: 18622721
Eur J Health Econ. 2015 May;16(4):437-50
pubmed: 24760405
BMJ Open. 2020 Oct 10;10(10):e037547
pubmed: 33039997
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jun 15;13:217
pubmed: 23768141
Int J Qual Health Care. 2017 Oct 1;29(5):612-624
pubmed: 28992156
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2018 Jun;36(2):152-160
pubmed: 29644927
Int J Qual Health Care. 2017 Jun 1;29(3):327-334
pubmed: 28430963
Clin Rehabil. 1999 Oct;13(5):411-9
pubmed: 10498348
Value Health. 2016 Jan;19(1):1-13
pubmed: 26797229
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 21;6(11):e011952
pubmed: 27872113
Int J Clin Pharm. 2014 Aug;36(4):675-8
pubmed: 24997013
Int J Behav Med. 2008;15(3):194-200
pubmed: 18696313
Health Aff (Millwood). 2008 May-Jun;27(3):759-69
pubmed: 18474969
Health Policy. 2018 Jan;122(1):12-22
pubmed: 28668222
Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Aug;15(4):309-18
pubmed: 12930046
BMJ Open. 2018 Aug 30;8(8):e021072
pubmed: 30166294
Health Soc Care Community. 2019 Jan;27(1):1-30
pubmed: 29667259
Stat Sci. 2010 Feb 1;25(1):1-21
pubmed: 20871802
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 May 10;18(1):350
pubmed: 29747651
Health Soc Care Community. 2009 Sep;17(5):447-58
pubmed: 19245421
J Nutr Health Aging. 2014 Nov;18(9):848-54
pubmed: 25389963
Med Care. 1991 Feb;29(2):169-76
pubmed: 1994148
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jul 24;18(1):576
pubmed: 30041653
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Apr 01;13:121
pubmed: 23547654

Auteurs

M Kamrul Islam (MK)

Department of Economics, University of Bergen, Postboks 7802, 5020, Bergen, Norway. kamrul.islam@uib.no.
Department of Social Sciences, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway. kamrul.islam@uib.no.

Sabine Ruths (S)

Research Unit for General Practice, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Kristian Jansen (K)

Research Unit for General Practice, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Nursing homes, Municipality of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Runa Falck (R)

Department of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Maureen Rutten-van Mölken (MR)

School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Jan Erik Askildsen (JE)

Department of Economics, University of Bergen, Postboks 7802, 5020, Bergen, Norway.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH