Dataset Information

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of proactive and multidisciplinary integrated care for older people with complex problems in general practice: an individual participant data meta-analysis

ABSTRACT: Abstract

Purpose

to support older people with several healthcare needs in sustaining adequate functioning and independence, more proactive approaches are needed. This purpose of this study is to summarise the (cost-) effectiveness of proactive, multidisciplinary, integrated care programmes for older people in Dutch primary care.

Methods design

individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of eight clinically controlled trials.

Setting

primary care sector.

Interventions

combination of (i) identification of older people with complex problems by means of screening, followed by (ii) a multidisciplinary integrated care programme for those identified.

Main outcome

activities of daily living, i.e. a change on modified Katz-15 scale between baseline and 1-year follow-up.

Secondary outcomes

quality of life (visual analogue scale 0–10), psychological (mental well-being scale Short Form Health Survey (SF)-36) and social well-being (single item, SF-36), quality-adjusted life years (Euroqol-5dimensions-3level (EQ-5D-3L)), healthcare utilisation and cost-effectiveness.

Analysis

intention-to-treat analysis, two-stage IPD and subgroup analysis based on patient and intervention characteristics.

Results

included were 8,678 participants: median age of 80.5 (interquartile range 75.3; 85.7) years; 5,496 (63.3%) women. On the modified Katz-15 scale, the pooled difference in change between the intervention and control group was ?0.01 (95% confidence interval ?0.10 to 0.08). No significant differences were found in the other patient outcomes or subgroup analyses. Compared to usual care, the probability of the intervention group to be cost-effective was less than 5%.

Conclusion

compared to usual care at 1-year follow-up, strategies for identification of frail older people in primary care combined with a proactive integrated care intervention are probably not (cost-) effective.

SUBMITTER: Blom J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6108387 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe article reports on the cost-effectiveness of the proactive, integrated primary care program Finding and Follow-up of Frail older persons (FFF) compared with usual primary care for community-dwelling frail older persons in the Netherlands.MethodsThis study had a matched quasi-experimental design (pretest and posttest). The economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare perspective with a time horizon of 12 months. The target population consisted of community-dwelling frail older persons aged ≥ 75 years in the FFF intervention group (11 general practitioner (GP) practices) and in the control group receiving usual care (4 GP practices). The effectiveness measures for the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were subjective well-being (Social Production Function Instrument for the Level of well-being short; SPF-ILs) and QALYs (EuroQol; EQ-5D-3L), respectively. Costs were assessed using resource use questionnaires. Differences in mean effectiveness between groups were assessed using univariate, multilevel and propensity score matched analyses, with and without imputation of missing values. Differences in costs were assessed using Mann-Whitney U-tests and independent samples t-tests. Bootstrapping was performed, and predicted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were depicted on cost-effectiveness planes.ResultsThe various analyses showed slightly different results with respect to differences in estimated costs and effects. Multilevel analyses showed a small but significant difference between the groups for well-being, in favor of the control group. No significant differences between groups in terms of QALYs were found. Imputed data showed that mean total costs were significantly higher in the intervention group at follow-up.ConclusionProactive, integrated care for community-dwelling frail older persons as provided in the FFF program is most likely not a cost-effective initiative, compared with usual primary care in the Netherlands, in terms of well-being and QALYs over a 12-month period.

Project description:BackgroundHepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common among people who inject drugs, yet well-described barriers mean that only a minority have accessed HCV treatment. Recent developments in HCV diagnosis and treatment facilitate innovative approaches to HCV care that improve access to, and uptake of, care by people who inject drugs.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine feasibility, acceptability, likely clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of an integrated model of HCV care for patients receiving opioid substitution treatment in general practice.MethodsA pre- and postintervention design with an embedded economic analysis was used to establish the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention to optimize HCV identification and linkage to HCV treatment among patients prescribed methadone in primary care. The "complex intervention" comprised general practitioner (GP)/practice staff education, nurse-led clinical support, and enhanced community-based HCV assessment of patients. General practices in North Dublin were recruited from the professional networks of the research team and from GPs who attended educational sessions.ResultsA total of 135 patients from 14 practices participated. Follow-up data were collected 6 months after intervention from 131 (97.0%) patients. With regard to likely clinical effectiveness, among patients with HCV antibody positivity, there was a significant increase in the proportions of patients who had a liver FibroScan (17/101, 16.8% vs 52/100, 52.0%; P<.001), had attended hepatology/infectious diseases services (51/101, 50.5% vs 61/100 61.0%; P=.002), and initiated treatment (20/101, 19.8% vs 30/100, 30.0%; P=.004). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the intervention was €13,255 (US $13,965.14) per quality-adjusted life-year gained at current full drug list price (€39,729 [US $41,857.48] per course), which would be cost saving if these costs are reduced by 88%.ConclusionsThe complex intervention involving clinical support, access to assessment, and practitioner education has the potential to enhance patient care, improving access to assessment and treatment in a cost-effective manner.

Project description:ObjectiveWe conducted a scoping review with the aim of comprehensively investigating what tools or methods have been examined in general practice research that capture a wide range of psychosocial problems (PSPs) and serve to identify patients and highlight their characteristics.MethodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual on scoping reviews. A systematic search was conducted in four electronic databases (Medline [Ovid], Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library) for quantitative and qualitative studies in English, Spanish, French, and German with no time limit. The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework and published in BMJ Open.ResultsOf the 839 articles identified, 66 met the criteria for study eligibility, from which 61 instruments were identified. The publications were from 18 different countries, with most studies employing an observational design and including mostly adult patients. Among all instruments, 22 were reported as validated, which we present in this paper. Overall, quality criteria were reported differently, with studies generally providing little detail. Most of the instruments were used as paper and pencil questionnaires. We found considerable heterogeneity in the theoretical conceptualisation, definition, and measurement of PSPs, ranging from psychiatric case findings to specific social problems.Discussion and conclusionThis review presents a number of tools and methods that have been studied and used in general practice research. Adapted and tailored to local circumstances, practice populations, and needs, they could be useful for identifying patients with PSPs in daily GP practice; however, this requires further research. Given the heterogeneity of studies and instruments, future research efforts should include both a more structured evaluation of instruments and the incorporation of consensus methods to move forward from instrument research to actual use in daily practice.