Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34454494›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

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

M Kamrul Islam, Sabine Ruths, Kristian Jansen, Runa Falck, Maureen Rutten-van Mölken, Jan Erik Askildsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

6 authors.

M Kamrul IslamDepartment of Economics, University of Bergen, Postboks 7802, 5020, Bergen, Norway. kamrul.islam@uib.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4751-1513
Sabine RuthsResearch Unit for General Practice, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway.
Kristian JansenResearch Unit for General Practice, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway.
Runa FalckDepartment of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Maureen Rutten-van MölkenSchool of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jan Erik AskildsenDepartment of Economics, University of Bergen, Postboks 7802, 5020, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

H2020 European Research Council 634288
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo 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.

methodsProspective 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.

resultsAt 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.

conclusionFrail 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.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedFrail ElderlyAgedDecision Support TechniquesHumansNorwayProspective StudiesContinuity of careDiscrete choice experimentFrail elderlyHolistic assessmentIntegrated careMixed methodsMulti-criteria decision analysisMulti-morbidityPrimary careQuasi-experimental design

Identifiers

PMID34454494
PMCPMC8400755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.