Exploration of understanding of impactibility analysis and application through workshops to inform model design for population health management policy: a qualitative assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Assess understanding of impactibility modelling definitions, benefits, challenges and approaches. DESIGN: Qualitative assessment. SETTING: Two workshops were developed. Workshop 1 was to consider impactibility definitions and terminology through moderated open discussion, what the potential pros and cons might be, and what factors would be best to assess. In workshop 2, participants appraised five approaches to impactibility modelling identified in the literature. PARTICIPANTS: National Health Service (NHS) analysts, policy-makers, academics and members of non-governmental think tank organisations identified through existing networks and via a general announcement on social media. Interested participants could enrol after signing informed consent. OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive assessment of responses to gain understanding of the concept of impactibility (defining impactibility analysis), the benefits and challenges of using this type of modelling and most relevant approach to building an impactibility model for the NHS. RESULTS: 37 people attended 1 or 2 workshops in small groups (maximum 10 participants): 21 attended both workshops, 6 only workshop 1 and 10 only workshop 2. Discussions in workshop 1 illustrated that impactibility modelling is not clearly understood, with it generally being viewed as a cross-sectional way to identify patients rather than considering patients by iterative follow-up. Recurrent factors arising from workshop 2 were the shortage of benchmarks; incomplete access to/recording of primary care data and social factors (which were seen as important to understanding amenability to treatment); the need for outcome/action suggestions as well as providing the data and the risk of increasing healthcare inequality. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding of impactibility modelling was poor among our workshop attendees, but it is an emerging concept for which few studies have been published. Implementation would require formal planning and training and should be performed by groups with expertise in the procurement and handling of the most relevant health-related real-world data.

The burden of diabetes-associated multiple long-term conditions on years of life spent and lost.

Diabetes mellitus is a central driver of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs), but population-based studies have not clearly characterized the burden across the life course. We estimated the age of onset, years of life spent and loss associated with diabetes-related MLTCs among 46 million English adults. We found that morbidity patterns extend beyond classic diabetes complications and accelerate the onset of severe MLTCs by 20 years earlier in life in women and 15 years earlier in men. By the age of 50 years, one-third of those with diabetes have at least three conditions, spend >20 years with them and die 11 years earlier than the general population. Each additional condition at the age of 50 years is associated with four fewer years of life. Hypertension, depression, cancer and coronary heart disease contribute heavily to MLTCs in older age and create the greatest community-level burden on years spent (813 to 3,908 years per 1,000 individuals) and lost (900 to 1,417 years per 1,000 individuals). However, in younger adulthood, depression, severe mental illness, learning disabilities, alcohol dependence and asthma have larger roles, and when they occur, all except alcohol dependence were associated with long periods of life spent (11-14 years) and all except asthma associated with many years of life lost (11-15 years). These findings provide a baseline for population monitoring and underscore the need to prioritize effective prevention and management approaches.