Trajectories of health care service utilization and differences in patient characteristics among adults with specific chronic pain: analysis of health plan member claims

Distinct care trajectories among persons living with arthritic conditions: A two-year state sequence analysis

OBJECTIVES

Developing solutions to optimize care trajectories (CareTs) requires examining patient journeys through the health care system. This study aimed to describe CareTs among people living with arthritis and evaluate their association with self-reported health outcomes.

METHODS

Analyses were conducted using the TorSaDE Cohort (n = 102,148), which connects the 2007 to 2016 Canadian Community Health Surveys (CCHS) with Quebec administrative databases (longitudinal claims). CareTs of participants living with arthritis according to CCHS (n = 16,631), over the two years before CCHS completion, were clustered using state sequence analysis (months as a time unit). CareT group membership was then put in association with self-reported outcomes (pain intensity and interference, self-perceived general and mental health).

RESULTS

The analysis revealed five CareT groups characterized predominantly by: (1) arthritis-related visits to a specialist (n = 2,756; 16.6%), (2) arthritis-related emergency department visits (n = 2,928; 17.6%), (3) very high all-cause health care utilization and arthritis-related hospitalizations (n = 1,570; 9.4%), (4) arthritis-related medical visits to general practitioners and specialists (n = 2,708; 16.3%), (5) low all-cause health care utilization (n = 6,669; 40.1%). Multivariable results revealed that CareT group membership was associated with higher levels of pain interference (CareT group #3 vs. #5: OR: 1.4, 95%CI: 1.1-1.8) and fair/poor self-perceived general health (CareT group #1 vs. #5: OR: 1.551, 95%CI: 1.319-1.824; #2 vs. #5: OR: 1.244, 95%CI: 1.062-1.457; #3 vs. #5: OR: 1.771, 95%CI: 1.451-2.162; #4 vs. #5: OR: 1.481, 95%CI: 1.265-1.735).

DISCUSSION

Sate sequence analysis is an innovative method of studying CareTs and valuable for making evidence-based decisions taking into account inter- and intra-individual variability.

Economic and Humanistic Burden of Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Large Sample Studies

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) consumes a significant amount of healthcare resources, and impairs the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients. Previous reviews have consistently found substantial variations in the costs of OA across studies and countries. The comparability between studies was poor and limited the detection of the true differences between these studies.

OBJECTIVE

To review large sample studies on measuring the economic and/or humanistic burden of OA published since May 2006.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases using comprehensive search strategies to identify studies reporting economic burden and HRQoL of OA. We included large sample studies if they had a sample size ≥1000 and measured the cost and/or HRQoL of OA. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate, performing a cross-check between groups to verify agreement. Within- and between-group consolidation was performed to resolve discrepancies, with outstanding discrepancies being resolved by an arbitrator. The Kappa statistic was reported to assess the agreement between the reviewers. All costs were adjusted in their original currency to year 2015 using published inflation rates for the country where the study was conducted, and then converted to 2015 US dollars.

RESULTS

A total of 651 articles were screened by title and abstract, 94 were reviewed in full text, and 28 were included in the final review. The Kappa value was 0.794. Twenty studies reported direct costs and nine reported indirect costs. The total annual average direct costs varied from US$1442 to US$21,335, both in USA. The annual average indirect costs ranged from US$238 to US$29,935. Twelve studies measured HRQoL using various instruments. The Short Form 12 version 2 scores ranged from 35.0 to 51.3 for the physical component, and from 43.5 to 55.0 for the mental component. Health utilities varied from 0.30 for severe OA to 0.77 for mild OA.

CONCLUSION

Per-patient OA costs are considerable and a patient's quality of life remains poor. Variations in costing methods are a barrier to understanding the true differences in the costs of OA between studies. Standardizing healthcare resource items, the definition of OA-relevant costs, and productivity loss measures would facilitate the comparison.