Introduction Cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) are the leading cause of death in high-income countries and are largely attributable to modifiable risk factors. Population health management (PHM) can... Show moreIntroduction Cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) are the leading cause of death in high-income countries and are largely attributable to modifiable risk factors. Population health management (PHM) can effectively identify patient subgroups at high risk of CMD and address missed opportunities for preventive disease management. Guided by the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, this scoping review of PHM interventions targeting patients in primary care at increased risk of CMD aims to describe the reported aspects for successful implementation.Methods A comprehensive search was conducted across 14 databases to identify papers published between 2000 and 2023, using Arksey and O'Malley's framework for conducting scoping reviews. The RE-AIM framework was used to assess the implementation, documentation, and the population health impact score of the PHM interventions.Results A total of 26 out of 1,100 studies were included, representing 21 unique PHM interventions. This review found insufficient reporting of most RE-AIM components. The RE-AIM evaluation showed that the included interventions could potentially reach a large audience and achieve their intended goals, but information on adoption and maintenance was often lacking. A population health impact score was calculated for six interventions ranging from 28 to 62%.Discussion This review showed the promise of PHM interventions that could reaching a substantial number of participants and reducing CMD risk factors. However, to better assess the generalizability and scalability of these interventions there is a need for an improved assessment of adoption, implementation processes, and sustainability. Show less
Girwar, S.A.M.; Jabroer, R.; Fiocco, M.; Sutch, S.P.; Numans, M.E.; Bruijnzeels, M.A. 2021
Background and AimsIn our current healthcare situation, burden on healthcare services is increasing, with higher costs and increased utilization. Structured population health management has been... Show moreBackground and AimsIn our current healthcare situation, burden on healthcare services is increasing, with higher costs and increased utilization. Structured population health management has been developed as an approach to balance quality with increasing costs. This approach identifies sub-populations with comparable health risks, to tailor interventions for those that will benefit the most. Worldwide, the use of routine healthcare data extracted from electronic health registries for risk stratification approaches is increasing. Different risk stratification tools are used on different levels of the healthcare continuum. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to explore which tools are used in primary healthcare settings and assess their performance.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review of studies applying risk stratification tools with health outcomes in primary care populations. Studies in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries published in English-language journals were included. Search engines were utilized with keywords, for example, “primary care,” “risk stratification,” and “model.” Risk stratification tools were compared based on different measures: area under the curve (AUC) and C-statistics for dichotomous outcomes and R2 for continuous outcomes.ResultsThe search provided 4718 articles. Specific election criteria such as primary care populations, generic health utilization outcomes, and routinely collected data sources identified 61 articles, reporting on 31 different models. The three most frequently applied models were the Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG, n = 23), the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI, n = 19), and the Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC, n = 7). Most AUC and C-statistic values were above 0.7, with ACG showing slightly improved scores compared with the CCI and HCC (typically between 0.6 and 0.7).ConclusionBased on statistical performance, the validity of the ACG was the highest, followed by the CCI and the HCC. The ACG also appeared to be the most flexible, with the use of different international coding systems and measuring a wider variety of health outcomes. Show less
