Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorHoedemakers, Maaike
dc.contributor.authorKarimi, Milad
dc.contributor.authorLeijten, Fenna
dc.contributor.authorGoossens, Lucas
dc.contributor.authorIslam, Kamrul
dc.contributor.authorTsiachristas, Apostolos
dc.contributor.authorRutten-van Mölken, Maureen
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-10T11:18:06Z
dc.date.available2022-10-10T11:18:06Z
dc.date.created2022-04-19T14:01:22Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationBMJ Open. 2022, 12:054672 1-12.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3025080
dc.description.abstractObjective 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleValue-based person-centred integrated care for frail elderly living at home: a quasi-experimental evaluation using multicriteria decision analysisen_US
dc.title.alternativeValue-based person-centred integrated care for frail elderly living at home: a quasi-experimental evaluation using multicriteria decision analysisen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.rights.holder© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022en_US
dc.source.articlenumber054672
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054672
dc.identifier.cristin2017591
dc.source.journalBMJ Openen_US
dc.source.volume12en_US
dc.source.pagenumber1-12en_US
dc.relation.projectEC/H2020/634288en_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal