Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28735567›Full record

ArticlePolicy, politics & nursing practice2017

Policy Research Challenges in Comparing Care Models for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries.

Janet H Van Cleave, Brian L Egleston, Sarah Brosch, Elizabeth Wirth, Molly Lawson, Eileen M Sullivan-Marx, Mary D Naylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Policy, politics & nursing practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Janet H Van Cleave1 NYU Rory Meyers College of Nursing, NY, USA.
Brian L Egleston2 Biostatistics Facility, Fox Chase Cancer, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Sarah Brosch1 NYU Rory Meyers College of Nursing, NY, USA.
Elizabeth Wirth1 NYU Rory Meyers College of Nursing, NY, USA.
Molly Lawson3 Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Eileen M Sullivan-Marx1 NYU Rory Meyers College of Nursing, NY, USA.
Mary D Naylor4 NewCourtland Center for Transitions and Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

Individualized Care for At Risk Older AdultsT32NR009356 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Lauren M Massimo, MARY D NAYLOR · 2007 to 2026
$7.8M
Health Related Quality of Life: Elders in Long-Term CareR01AG025524 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI NAYLOR, MARY D · 2006 to 2010
$2.8M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG025524NINR NIH HHS T32 NR009356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Providing affordable, high-quality care for the 10 million persons who are dual-eligible beneficiaries of Medicare and Medicaid is an ongoing health-care policy challenge in the United States. However, the workforce and the care provided to dual-eligible beneficiaries are understudied. The purpose of this article is to provide a narrative of the challenges and lessons learned from an exploratory study in the use of clinical and administrative data to compare the workforce of two care models that deliver home- and community-based services to dual-eligible beneficiaries. The research challenges that the study team encountered were as follows: (a) comparing different care models, (b) standardizing data across care models, and (c) comparing patterns of health-care utilization. The methods used to meet these challenges included expert opinion to classify data and summative content analysis to compare and count data. Using descriptive statistics, a summary comparison of the two care models suggested that the coordinated care model workforce provided significantly greater hours of care per recipient than the integrated care model workforce. This likely represented the coordinated care model's focus on providing in-home services for one recipient, whereas the integrated care model focused on providing services in a day center with group activities. The lesson learned from this exploratory study is the need for standardized quality measures across home- and community-based services agencies to determine the workforce that best meets the needs of dual-eligible beneficiaries.

Indexed as

Health PolicyEligibility DeterminationHealth ExpendituresHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansInsurance CoverageMedicaidMedicareUnited Statescare coordinationdual-eligible beneficiariesMedicaidMedicarenursing workforceoutcomes (measurement)

Identifiers

PMID28735567
PMCPMC7133145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.