Heterogeneity in preferences for outcomes of integrated care for persons with multiple chronic diseases: a latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment.

PURPOSE: For an integrated care programme to be successful, preferences of the stakeholders involved should be aligned. The aim of this study is to investigate to which extent outcomes beyond health are valued and to study the heterogeneity of preferences of those involved in integrated care. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit preferences for eight Triple Aim outcomes, i.e., physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships & participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person-centeredness, continuity of care and total health and social care costs. Stakeholders were recruited among Dutch persons with multi-morbidity, informal caregivers, professionals, payers, and policymakers. A Bayesian mixed-logit model was used to analyse the data. Subsequently, a latent class analysis was performed to identify stakeholders with similar preferences. RESULTS: 739 stakeholders completed the DCE. Enjoyment of life was perceived as the most important outcome (relative importance: 0.221) across stakeholders, while total health and social care costs were perceived as least important (0.063). The latent class analysis identified four classes. The first class (19.9%) put most weight on experience with care outcomes. The second class (39%) favoured enjoyment of life. The third class (18%) focused relatively more on physical health. The fourth class (24%) had the least consistent preferences. CONCLUSION: This study has highlighted the heterogeneity in views of stakeholders in integrated care on what is important in health(care) for persons with multi-morbidity. To accurately value integrated care a variety of outcomes beyond health-e.g., enjoyment of life and experience with care-should be taken into account.

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.

[Patients, Partners, Professionals, Payers and Policy Makers Preferences for Integrated Care for Multimorbidity in Germany: A Discrete Choice Experiment]. / Präferenzen von Patienten, pflegenden Angehörigen, Leistungserbringern, Kostenträgern und politischen Entscheidungsträgern bei der integrierten Versorgung in Deutschland: Ein Discrete Choice Experiment.

AIM OF THE WORK: The aim of this study was to measure and compare the relative importance that patients with multimorbidity, partners and other informal caregivers, professionals, payers and policy makers attribute to different outcome measures of integrated care (IC) programmes in Germany. METHODS: A DCE was conducted, asking respondents to choose between two IC programmes for persons with multimorbidity. Each IC programme was presented by means of attributes or outcomes reflecting the Triple Aim. They were divided into the outcomes health/ wellbeing, experience with care and costs with in total eight attributes and three levels of performance. RESULTS: The results of n=676 questionnaires showed that the attributes "enjoyment of life" and "continuity of care" received the highest ratings across all stakeholder groups. The lowest relative scores remained for the attribute "total costs" for all stakeholders. The preferences of professionals and informal caregivers differed most distinctly from the patients' preferences. The differences mostly concerned "physical functioning", which was rated highest by patients, and "person centeredness" and "continuity of care", which received the highest ratings from professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The preference heterogeneities identified in relation to the outcomes of IC programmes between different stakeholders highlight the importance of informing professionals and policy makers about the different perspectives in order to optimise the design of IC programmes. The results also support the relevance of joint decision-making and coordination processes between professionals, informal caregivers and patients.

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.

Comparing patients' and other stakeholders' preferences for outcomes of integrated care for multimorbidity: a discrete choice experiment in eight European countries.

OBJECTIVES: To measure relative preferences for outcomes of integrated care of patients with multimorbidity from eight European countries and compare them to the preferences of other stakeholders within these countries. DESIGN: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in each country, asking respondents to choose between two integrated care programmes for persons with multimorbidity. SETTING: Preference data collected in Austria (AT), Croatia (HR), Germany (DE), Hungary (HU), the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Spain (ES), and UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with multimorbidity, partners and other informal caregivers, professionals, payers and policymakers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preferences of participants regarding outcomes of integrated care described as health/well-being, experience with care and cost outcomes, that is, physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships and participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person-centredness, continuity of care and total costs. Each outcome had three levels of performance. RESULTS: 5122 respondents completed the DCE. In all countries, patients with multimorbidity, as well as most other stakeholder groups, assigned the (second) highest preference to enjoyment of life. The patients top-three most frequently included physical functioning, psychological well-being and continuity of care. Continuity of care also entered the top-three of professionals, payers and policymakers in four countries (AT, DE, HR and HU). Of the five stakeholder groups, preferences of professionals differed most often from preferences of patients. Professionals assigned lower weights to physical functioning in AT, DE, ES, NL and NO and higher weights to person-centredness in AT, DE, ES and HU. Payers and policymakers assigned higher weights than patients to costs, but these weights were relatively low. CONCLUSION: The well-being outcome enjoyment of life is the most important outcome of integrated care in multimorbidity. This calls for a greater involvement of social and mental care providers. The difference in opinion between patients and professionals calls for shared decision-making, whereby efforts to improve well-being and person-centredness should not divert attention from improving physical functioning.

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.