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

Maximum Acceptable Risk Estimation Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment and a Probabilistic Threshold Technique

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to empirically compare maximum acceptable risk results estimated using both a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT).

METHODS

Members of the UK general public (n = 982) completed an online survey including a DCE and a PTT (in random order) measuring their preferences for preventative treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. For the DCE, a Bayesian D-efficient design consisting of four blocks of 15 choice tasks was constructed including six attributes with varying levels. The PTT used identical risk and benefit attributes. For the DCE, a panel mixed-logit model was conducted, both mean and individual estimates were used to calculate maximum acceptable risk. For the PTT, interval regression was used to calculate maximum acceptable risk. Perceived complexity of the choice tasks and preference heterogeneity were investigated for both methods.

RESULTS

Maximum acceptable risk confidence intervals of both methods overlapped for serious infection and serious side effects but not for mild side effects (maximum acceptable risk was 32.7 percent-points lower in the PTT). Although, both DCE and PTT tasks overall were considered easy or very easy to understand and answer, significantly more respondents rated the DCE choice tasks as easier to understand compared with those who rated the PTT as easier (7-percentage point difference; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Maximum acceptable risk estimate confidence intervals based on a DCE and a PTT overlapped for two out of the three included risk attributes. More respondents rated the DCE as easier to understand. This may suggest that the DCE is better suited in studies estimating maximum acceptable risk for multiple risk attributes of differing severity, while the PTT may be better suited when measuring heterogeneity in maximum acceptable risk estimates or when investigating one or more serious adverse events.

Comparing Patient and Provider Priorities Around Amputation Level Outcomes Using Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia may require a transmetatarsal amputation (TMA) or a transtibial amputation. When making an amputation-level decision, these patients face a tradeoff-a TMA preserves more limb and may provide better mobility but has a lower probability of primary wound healing and may therefore result in additional same or higher level amputation surgeries with an associated negative impact on function. Understanding differences in how patients and providers prioritize these tradeoffs and other outcomes may enhance shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

Compare patient priorities with provider perceptions of patient priorities using Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

METHODS

The MCDA Analytic Hierarchy Process was chosen due to its low cognitive burden and ease of implementation. We included 5 criteria (outcomes): ability to walk, healing after amputation surgery, rehabilitation program intensity, limb length, and ease of use of prosthetic/orthotic device. A national sample of dysvascular lower-limb amputees and providers were recruited from the Veterans Health Administration with the MCDA administered online to providers and telephonically to patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-six dysvascular amputees and 38 providers participated. Fifty percent of patients had undergone a TMA; 50%, a transtibial amputation. When compared to providers, patients placed higher value on TMA (72% vs. 63%). Patient versus provider priorities were ability to walk (47% vs. 42%), healing (18% vs. 28%), ease of prosthesis use (17% vs. 13%), limb length (11% vs. 13%), and then rehabilitation intensity (7% vs. 6%).

LIMITATIONS

Our sample may not generalize to other populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Provider perceptions aligned with patient values on amputation level but varied around the importance of each outcome.

IMPLICATIONS

These findings illuminate some differences between patients' values and provider perceptions of patient values, suggesting a role for shared decision-making. Embedding this MCDA framework into a future decision aid may facilitate these discussions.

Suitability of Preference Methods Across the Medical Product Lifecycle: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to understand the importance of criteria describing methods (eg, duration, costs, validity, and outcomes) according to decision makers for each decision point in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC) and to determine the suitability of a discrete choice experiment, swing weighting, probabilistic threshold technique, and best-worst scale cases 1 and 2 at each decision point in the MPLC.

METHODS

Applying multicriteria decision analysis, an online survey was sent to MPLC decision makers (ie, industry, regulatory, and health technology assessment representatives). They ranked and weighted 19 methods criteria from an existing performance matrix about their respective decisions across the MPLC. All criteria were given a relative weight based on the ranking and rating in the survey after which an overall suitability score was calculated for each preference elicitation method per decision point. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to reflect uncertainty in the performance matrix.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine industry, 29 regulatory, and 5 health technology assessment representatives completed the surveys. Overall, "estimating trade-offs between treatment characteristics" and "estimating weights for treatment characteristics" were highly important criteria throughout all MPLC decision points, whereas other criteria were most important only for specific MPLC stages. Swing weighting and probabilistic threshold technique received significantly higher suitability scores across decision points than other methods. Sensitivity analyses showed substantial impact of uncertainty in the performance matrix.

CONCLUSION

Although discrete choice experiment is the most applied preference elicitation method, other methods should also be considered to address the needs of decision makers. Development of evidence-based guidance documents for designing, conducting, and analyzing such methods could enhance their use.

[Patients, Partners, Professionals, Payers and Policy Makers Preferences for Integrated Care for Multimorbidity in Germany: A 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.

Prospective cohort study for assessment of integrated care with a triple aim approach: hospital at home as use case

Background

Applicability of comprehensive assessment of integrated care services in real world settings is an unmet need. To this end, a Triple Aim evaluation of Hospital at Home (HaH), as use case, was done. As ancillary aim, we explored use of the approach for monitoring the impact of adoption of integrated care at health system level in Catalonia (Spain).

Methods

Prospective cohort study over one year period, 2017–2018, comparing hospital avoidance (HaH-HA) with conventional hospitalization (UC) using propensity score matching. Participants were after the first episode directly admitted to HaH-HA or the corresponding control group. Triple Aim assessment using multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was done. Moreover, applicability of a Triple Aim approach at health system level was explored using registry data.

Results

HaH-HA depicted lower: i) Emergency Room Department (ER) visits (p < .001), ii) Unplanned re-admissions (p = .012); and iii) costs (p < .001) than UC. The weighted aggregation of the standardized values of each of the eight outcomes, weighted by the opinions of the stakeholder groups considered in the MCDA: i) enjoyment of life; ii) resilience; iii) physical functioning; iv) continuity of care; v) psychological wellbeing; (vi) social relationships & participation; (vii) person-centeredness; and (viii) costs, indicated better performance of HaH-HA than UC (p < .05). Actionable factors for Triple Aim assessment of the health system with a population-health approach were identified.

Conclusions

We confirmed health value generation of HaH-HA. The study identified actionable factors to enhance applicability of Triple Aim assessment at health system level for monitoring the impact of adoption of integrated care.

Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (26/04/2017; NCT03130283).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08496-z.

Values Underpinning Integrated, People-Centred Health Services: Similarities and Differences among Actor Groups Across Europe

Introduction:

In addition to the functional aspects of healthcare integration, an understanding of its normative aspects is needed. This study explores the importance of values underpinning integrated, people-centred health services, and examines similarities and differences among the values prioritised by actors across Europe.

Methods:

Explorative cross-sectional design with quantitative analysis. A questionnaire of 18 values was conducted across Europe. A total of 1,013 respondents indicated the importance of each of the values on a nine-point scale and selected three most important values. Respondents were clustered in four actor groups, and countries in four European sub-regions.

Results:

The importance scores of values ranged from 7.62 to 8.55 on a nine-point scale. Statistically significant differences among actor groups were found for ten values. Statistically significant differences across European sub-regions were found for six values. Our analysis revealed two clusters of values: ‘people related’ and ‘governance and organisation’.

Discussion and conclusion:

The study found that all 18 values in the set are considered important by the respondents. Additionally, it revealed distinctions in emphasis among the values prioritised by actor groups and across sub-regions. The study uncovered two clusters of values that contribute to a conceptually based definition of integrated, people-centred health services.

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03147-6.

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 an integrated care pathway for frail elderly patients in Norway using multi-criteria decision analysis

Background

To provide value-based care for patients with multi-morbidity, innovative integrated care programmes and comprehensive evaluations of such programmes are required. In Norway, a new programme called “Holistic Continuity of Patient Care” (HCPC) addresses the issue of multi-morbidity by providing integrated care within learning networks for frail elderly patients who receive municipal home care services or a short-term stay in a nursing home. This study conducts a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate whether the HCPC programme performs better on a large set of outcomes corresponding to the ‘triple aim’ compared to usual care.

Methods

Prospective longitudinal survey data were collected at baseline and follow-up after 6-months. The assessment of HCPC was implemented by a novel MCDA framework. The relative weights of importance of the outcomes used in the MCDA were obtained from a discrete choice experiment among five different groups of stakeholders. The performance score was estimated using a quasi-experimental design and linear mixed methods. Performance scores were standardized and multiplied by their weights of importance to obtain the overall MCDA value by stakeholder group.

Results

At baseline in the HCPC and usual care groups, respectively, 120 and 89 patients responded, of whom 87 and 41 responded at follow-up. The average age at baseline was 80.0 years for HCPC and 83.6 for usual care. Matching reduced the standardized differences between the groups for patient background characteristics and outcome variables. The MCDA results indicated that HCPC was preferred to usual care irrespective of stakeholders. The better performance of HCPC was mostly driven by improvements in enjoyment of life, psychological well-being, and social relationships and participation. Results were consistent with sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation.

Conclusion

Frail elderly with multi-morbidity represent complex health problems at large costs for society in terms of health- and social care. This study is a novel contribution to assessing and understanding HCPC programme performance respecting the multi-dimensionality of desired outcomes. Integrated care programmes like HCPC may improve well-being of patients, be cost-saving, and contribute to the pursuit of evidence based gradual reforms in the care of frail elderly.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06805-6.

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.

Economic Evaluation of New Models of Care: Does the Decision Change Between Cost-Utility Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis?

OBJECTIVES

To experiment with new approaches of collaboration in healthcare delivery, local authorities implement new models of care. Regarding the local decision context of these models, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) may be of added value to cost-utility analysis (CUA), because it covers a wider range of outcomes. This study compares the 2 methods using a side-by-side application.

METHODS

A new Dutch model of care, Primary Care Plus (PC+), was used as a case study to compare the results of CUA and MCDA. Data of patients referred to PC+ or care-as-usual were retrieved by questionnaires and administrative databases with a 3-month follow-up. Propensity score matching together with generalized linear regression models was used to reduce confounding. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore uncertainty in the results.

RESULTS

Although both methods indicated PC+ as the dominant alternative, complementary differences were observed. MCDA provided additional evidence that PC+ improved access to care (standardized performance score of 0.742 vs 0.670) and that improvement in health-related quality of life was driven by the psychological well-being component (standardized performance score of 0.710 vs 0.704). Furthermore, MCDA estimated the budget required for PC+ to be affordable in addition to preferable (€521.42 per patient). Additionally, MCDA was less sensitive to the utility measures used.

CONCLUSIONS

MCDA may facilitate an auditable and transparent evaluation of new models of care by providing additional information on a wider range of outcomes and incorporating affordability. However, more effort is needed to increase the usability of MCDA among local decision makers.