Dataset Information

A systematic review of risk stratification tools internationally used in primary care settings.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

In our current healthcare situation, burden on healthcare services is increasing, with higher costs and increased utilization. Structured population health management has been developed as an approach to balance quality with increasing costs. This approach identifies sub-populations with comparable health risks, to tailor interventions for those that will benefit the most. Worldwide, the use of routine healthcare data extracted from electronic health registries for risk stratification approaches is increasing. Different risk stratification tools are used on different levels of the healthcare continuum. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to explore which tools are used in primary healthcare settings and assess their performance.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review of studies applying risk stratification tools with health outcomes in primary care populations. Studies in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries published in English-language journals were included. Search engines were utilized with keywords, for example, "primary care," "risk stratification," and "model." Risk stratification tools were compared based on different measures: area under the curve (AUC) and C-statistics for dichotomous outcomes and R ² for continuous outcomes.

Results

The search provided 4718 articles. Specific election criteria such as primary care populations, generic health utilization outcomes, and routinely collected data sources identified 61 articles, reporting on 31 different models. The three most frequently applied models were the Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG, n = 23), the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI, n = 19), and the Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC, n = 7). Most AUC and C-statistic values were above 0.7, with ACG showing slightly improved scores compared with the CCI and HCC (typically between 0.6 and 0.7).

Conclusion

Based on statistical performance, the validity of the ACG was the highest, followed by the CCI and the HCC. The ACG also appeared to be the most flexible, with the use of different international coding systems and measuring a wider variety of health outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Girwar SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8299990 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the growing interest in assessing the quality of care for depression, there is little evidence to support measurement of the quality of primary care for depression. This study identified evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for depression in primary care settings.MethodsOvid MEDLINE and Ovid PsycINFO databases, and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (2) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with depression in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Quality indicators applicable to care for adults with depression in primary care settings were extracted using a structured form. The extracted quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework.ResultsThe search revealed 3838 studies. Four additional publications were identified through grey literature searching. Thirty-nine articles were reviewed in detail and seven met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and usage of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 53 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlap conceptually or in content: 15 structure, 33 process and four outcome indicators. This study identified quality indicators for evaluating primary care for depression among adult patients.ConclusionsThe identified set of indicators address multiple dimensions of depression care and provide an excellent starting point for further development and use in primary care settings.

Project description:Type 2 diabetes is impacting millions of people globally; however, many future cases can be prevented through lifestyle changes and interventions. Primary care is an important setting for diabetes prevention, for at-risk populations, because it is a patient's primary point of contact with the health care system and professionals can provide lifestyle counselling and support, as well as monitoring health outcomes. These are all essential elements for diabetes prevention for at-risk adults.To understand the factors related to the delivery and uptake of type 2 diabetes prevention interventions within primary care in higher income countries.For this narrative systematic review, we combined qualitative and quantitative studies of diabetes prevention within a primary care setting for patients at-risk of developing the condition. We used an iterative approach for evidence collection, which included using several databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Pysch info, BNI, SSCI, CINAHL, ASSIA), where we combined diabetes terms with primary care terms. Narrative and thematic synthesis were utilised to identify the prominent themes emerging from the data.A database of 6646 records was screened by the research team, and 18 papers were included. Three major themes were identified in this review. The first theme of context and setting of diabetes progression includes the risk and progression of diabetes, primary care as a setting, and where the responsibility for change is thought to lie. This review also found mixed views on the value of preventative services within primary care. The second theme focused on the various patient factors associated with diabetes prevention such as a patient's motivation to modify their current lifestyle, perceptions and knowledge (or lack thereof) of the impacts of diabetes, lack of follow-up in healthcare settings, and trust in healthcare professionals. The third theme was centred on professional factors impacting on diabetes prevention which included workload, time constraints, resources, self-efficacy and knowledge as well as professionals' perception of patient motivations towards change.This review explored the factors influencing diabetes prevention in primary care, and identified the context of prevention, as well as patient and professional factors related to preventative services being offered in primary care. This systematic review complements previous reviews of real-world settings by exploring the significant factors in prevention, and the findings are relevant to academics, policymakers, patients and practitioners interested in understanding the factors associated with the delivery and uptake of diabetes prevention interventions.