Value-based person-centred integrated care for frail elderly living at home: a quasi-experimental evaluation using multicriteria decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of the person-centred, integrated care programme Care Chain Frail Elderly (CCFE) compared with usual care, using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). DESIGN: In a 12-month quasi-experimental study, triple-aim outcomes were measured at 0, 6 and 12 months by trained interviewers during home-visits. SETTING: Primary care, community-based elderly care. PARTICIPANTS: 384 community-dwelling frail elderly were enrolled. The 12-month completion rate was 70% in both groups. Propensity score matching was used to balance age, gender, marital status, living situation, education, smoking status and 3 month costs prior to baseline between the two groups. INTERVENTION: The CCFE is an integrated care programme with unique features like the presence of the elderly and informal caregiver at the multidisciplinary team meetings, and a bundled payment. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: The MCDA results in weighted overall value scores that combines the performance on physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships and participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person-centredness, continuity of care and costs, with importance weights of patients, informal caregivers, professionals, payers and policy-makers. RESULTS: At 6 months, the overall value scores of CCFE were higher in all stakeholder groups, driven by enjoyment of life (standardised performance scores 0.729 vs 0.685) and person-centredness (0.749 vs 0.663). At 12 months, the overall value scores in both groups were similar from a patient's perspective, slightly higher for CCFE from an informal caregiver's and professional's perspective, and lower for CCFE from a payer's and policy-maker's perspective. The latter was driven by a worse performance on physical functioning (0.682 vs 0.731) and higher costs (€22 816 vs €20 680). CONCLUSIONS: The MCDA indicated that the CCFE is the preferred way of delivering care to frail elderly at 6 months. However, at 12 months, MCDA results showed little difference from the perspective of patients, informal caregivers and professionals, while payers and policy-makers seemed to prefer usual care.

Evaluating Complex Health and Social Care Program Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Case Study of "Better Together in Amsterdam North".

OBJECTIVES: Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been recommended to support policy making in healthcare. However, practical applications of MCDA are sparse. One potential use for MCDA is for the evaluation of programs for complex and vulnerable patients. These complex patients benefit from integrated care programs that span healthcare and social care and aim to improve more than just health outcomes. MCDA can evaluate programs that aim to improve broader outcomes because it allows the evaluation of multiple outcomes alongside each other. In this study, we evaluate an innovative integrated care program in the Netherlands using MCDA. METHODS: We used an innovative MCDA framework with broad outcomes of health, well-being, and cost to evaluate the Better Together in Amsterdam North (BSiN) program using preferences of patients, partners, providers, payers, and policy makers in the Netherlands. BSiN provides case management support for a period of 6 months. Seven outcomes that previous research has deemed important to complex patients were measured, including physical functioning and social relationships and participation. RESULTS: We find that the program improved the overall MCDA score marginally, and, thus, after 6 and after 12 months, BSiN was preferred to usual care by all stakeholders. BSiN was preferred to usual care, mostly owing to improvements in psychological well-being and social relationships and participation. CONCLUSIONS: The integrated healthcare and social care program BSiN in the Netherlands was preferred to usual care according to an MCDA evaluation. MCDA seems a useful method to evaluate complex programs with benefits beyond health.

An assessment on potential risk pathways for the incursion of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in backyard poultry farm in Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is a deadly virus of zoonotic potential. The study mainly aims to determine the risk pathways (RPs) for the probable incursion of HPAI virus (HPAIV) in backyard poultry in Bangladesh. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involves expert elicitation technique. The concept map determines the possible RPs. The map consists of 16 concepts, each with nodes from which probabilities of an event originates. These probabilities are described by qualitative descriptors ranging from negligible to high. Risk assessment has been performed using the subjective risk assessment tool. RESULTS: The tool demonstrates positive correlation among groups of experts in the level of agreement by scoring RP; however, the level of agreement varies from 71% to 93% among group of experts. The median risk score of viral incursion through the "Exposure of backyard poultry with farm poultry in the trading market" was 11 and ranked as top, followed by "Contaminated live bird market environment" and "Sharing common scavenging space with migratory birds" (median risk score, 10.5; rank, 2), and "Scavenging of infected slaughtered poultry remnants by backyard poultry" (median risk score, 5.3; rank, 3) when no control options were applied along with the RPs. After applying or considering control option along with contaminated live bird market environment, the median risk score was reduced to 5.0. Applying a specific control option along with each RP reduced estimated median risk scores for HPAIV incursions. CONCLUSION: This study provides an insight into the incursion risks of HPAIV through various RPs in backyard poultry in Bangladesh.

Evaluation of integrated care services in Catalonia: population-based and service-based real-life deployment protocols.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive assessment of integrated care deployment constitutes a major challenge to ensure quality, sustainability and transferability of both healthcare policies and services in the transition toward a coordinated service delivery scenario. To this end, the manuscript articulates four different protocols aiming at assessing large-scale implementation of integrated care, which are being developed within the umbrella of the regional project Nextcare (2016-2019), undertaken to foster innovation in technologically-supported services for chronic multimorbid patients in Catalonia (ES) (7.5 M inhabitants). Whereas one of the assessment protocols is designed to evaluate population-based deployment of care coordination at regional level during the period 2011-2017, the other three are service-based protocols addressing: i) Home hospitalization; ii) Prehabilitation for major surgery; and, iii) Community-based interventions for frail elderly chronic patients. All three services have demonstrated efficacy and potential for health value generation. They reflect different implementation maturity levels. While full coverage of the entire urban health district of Barcelona-Esquerra (520 k inhabitants) is the main aim of home hospitalization, demonstration of sustainability at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona constitutes the core goal of the prehabilitation service. Likewise, full coverage of integrated care services addressed to frail chronic patients is aimed at the city of Badalona (216 k inhabitants). METHODS: The population-based analysis, as well as the three service-based protocols, follow observational and experimental study designs using a non-randomized intervention group (integrated care) compared with a control group (usual care) with a propensity score matching method. Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of the interventions using a Quadruple aim approach is a central outcome in all protocols. Moreover, multi-criteria decision analysis is explored as an innovative method for health delivery assessment. The following additional dimensions will also be addressed: i) Determinants of sustainability and scalability of the services; ii) Assessment of the technological support; iii) Enhanced health risk assessment; and, iv) Factors modulating service transferability. DISCUSSION: The current study offers a unique opportunity to undertake a comprehensive assessment of integrated care fostering deployment of services at regional level. The study outcomes will contribute refining service workflows, improving health risk assessment and generating recommendations for service selection. TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03130283 (date released 04/06/2018), NCT03768050 (date released 12/05/2018), NCT03767387 (date released 12/05/2018).

Strengthening the evidence-base of integrated care for people with multi-morbidity in Europe using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of integrated care programmes for individuals with multi-morbidity requires a broader evaluation framework and a broader definition of added value than is common in cost-utility analysis. This is possible through the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). METHODS AND RESULTS: This paper presents the seven steps of an MCDA to evaluate 17 different integrated care programmes for individuals with multi-morbidity in 8 European countries participating in the 4-year, EU-funded SELFIE project. In step one, qualitative research was undertaken to better understand the decision-context of these programmes. The programmes faced decisions related to their sustainability in terms of reimbursement, continuation, extension, and/or wider implementation. In step two, a uniform set of decision criteria was defined in terms of outcomes measured across the 17 programmes: physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships and participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person-centeredness, continuity of care, and total health and social care costs. These were supplemented by programme-type specific outcomes. Step three presents the quasi-experimental studies designed to measure the performance of the programmes on the decision criteria. Step four gives details of the methods (Discrete Choice Experiment, Swing Weighting) to determine the relative importance of the decision criteria among five stakeholder groups per country. An example in step five illustrates the value-based method of MCDA by which the performance of the programmes on each decision criterion is combined with the weight of the respective criterion to derive an overall value score. Step six describes how we deal with uncertainty and introduces the Conditional Multi-Attribute Acceptability Curve. Step seven addresses the interpretation of results in stakeholder workshops. DISCUSSION: By discussing our solutions to the challenges involved in creating a uniform MCDA approach for the evaluation of different programmes, this paper provides guidance to future evaluations and stimulates debate on how to evaluate integrated care for multi-morbidity.