Dataset Information

A randomized trial examining the effect of predictive analytics and tailored interventions on the cost of care.

ABSTRACT: This two-arm randomized controlled trial evaluated the impact of a Stepped-Care intervention (predictive analytics combined with tailored interventions) on the healthcare costs of older adults using a Personal Emergency Response System (PERS). A total of 370 patients aged 65 and over with healthcare costs in the middle segment of the cost pyramid for the fiscal year prior to their enrollment were enrolled for the study. During a 180-day intervention period, control group (CG) received standard care, while intervention group (IG) received the Stepped-Care intervention. The IG had 31% lower annualized inpatient cost per patient compared with the CG (3.7 K, $8.1 K vs. $11.8 K, p = 0.02). Both groups had similar annualized outpatient costs per patient ($6.1 K vs. $5.8 K, p = 0.10). The annualized total cost reduction per patient in the IG vs. CG was 20% (3.5 K, $17.7 K vs. $14.2 K, p = 0.04). Predictive analytics coupled with tailored interventions has great potential to reduce healthcare costs in older adults, thereby supporting population health management in home or community settings.

SUBMITTER: Nikolova-Simons M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8175712 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized trial examining the effect of predictive analytics and tailored interventions on the cost of care.

Nikolova-Simons Mariana M Golas Sara Bersche SB den Buijs Jorn Op JO Palacholla Ramya S RS Garberg Gary G Orenstein Allison A Kvedar Joseph J

NPJ digital medicine 20210603 1

This two-arm randomized controlled trial evaluated the impact of a Stepped-Care intervention (predictive analytics combined with tailored interventions) on the healthcare costs of older adults using a Personal Emergency Response System (PERS). A total of 370 patients aged 65 and over with healthcare costs in the middle segment of the cost pyramid for the fiscal year prior to their enrollment were enrolled for the study. During a 180-day intervention period, control group (CG) received standard c ...[more]

PMID: 34083743

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRisk of overdose, suicide, and other adverse outcomes are elevated among sub-populations prescribed opioid analgesics. To address this, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM)-a provider-facing dashboard that utilizes predictive analytics to stratify patients prescribed opioids based on risk for overdose/suicide.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of the case review mandate on serious adverse events (SAEs) and all-cause mortality among high-risk Veterans.DesignA 23-month stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in all 140 VHA medical centers between 2018 and 2020.ParticipantsA total of 44,042 patients actively prescribed opioid analgesics with high STORM risk scores (i.e., percentiles 1% to 5%) for an overdose or suicide-related event.InterventionA mandate requiring providers to perform case reviews on opioid analgesic-prescribed patients at high risk of overdose/suicide.Main measuresNine serious adverse events (SAEs), case review completion, number of risk mitigation strategies, and all-cause mortality.Key resultsMandated review inclusion was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality within 4 months of inclusion (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.65-0.94). There was no detectable effect on SAEs. Stepped-wedge analyses found that mandated review patients were five times more likely to receive a case review than non-mandated patients with similar risk (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 3.64-7.23) and received more risk mitigation strategies than non-mandated patients (0.498; CI: 0.39-0.61).ConclusionsAmong VHA patients prescribed opioid analgesics, identifying high risk patients and mandating they receive an interdisciplinary case review was associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality. Results suggest that providers can leverage predictive analytic-targeted population health approaches and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve patient outcomes.Trial registrationISRCTN16012111.

Project description:ImportancePatient adherence to antidiabetic medications, especially insulin, remains poor, leading to adverse outcomes and increased costs. Most adherence interventions have only been modestly effective, partly because they are not targeted to patients who could benefit most.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether delivering more intensive insulin-adherence interventions only to individuals with type 2 diabetes predicted to benefit most was more effective than delivering a lower-intensity intervention to a larger group of unselected individuals.Design, setting, and participantsThis 3-arm pragmatic randomized clinical trial used data from Horizon, the largest health insurer in New Jersey, on 6000 participants 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes who were receiving basal insulin. Patients were excluded if they were insured by Medicaid or Medicare or had fewer than 3 months of continuous enrollment. The study was conducted from July 7, 2016, through October 5, 2017. Analyses were conducted from February 5 to September 24, 2018.InterventionsEligible patients were randomized to 3 arms in a 1:1:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified based on baseline availability of 1 or more glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test values. All arms were designed to cost the same, and each cohort received a tailored pharmacist telephone consultation varying based on (1) proportion receiving the intervention and (2) intensity, including follow-up frequency and cointerventions. Arm 1 offered a low-intensity intervention to all patients. Arm 2 offered a moderate-intensity intervention to 60% of patients based on their predicted risk of insulin nonadherence. Arm 3 offered a high-intensity intervention to 40% of patients based on glycemic control and predicted risk of insulin nonadherence.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was insulin persistence. Secondary outcomes were changes in HbA1c level and health care utilization. Outcomes were evaluated in arms 2 and 3 vs arm 1 using claims data, intention-to-treat principles, and multiple imputation for missing values in the 12-month follow-up.ResultsAmong 6000 participants, mean (SD) age was 55.9 (11.0) years and 3344 (59.8%) were male. Compared with arm 1, insulin nonpersistence did not differ in arm 2 (relative risk, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.03) or arm 3 (relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.06). Glycemic control was similar in arm 2 and arm 1 (absolute HbA1c level difference, -0.15%; 95% CI, -0.34% to 0.05%) but was better in arm 3 (absolute HbA1c level difference, -0.25%; 95% CI, -0.43% to -0.06%). Total spending and office visits did not differ, but arm 2 (moderate intensity intervention) had more hospitalizations (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.41) and emergency department visits (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.24-1.53) than did arm 1 (low intensity intervention).Conclusions and relevanceCompared with an untargeted low-intensity intervention, delivering a highly targeted high-intensity intervention did not improve insulin persistence but modestly improved mean glycemic control. A partially targeted moderate-intensity intervention did not change insulin persistence or HbA1c level but was associated with a small increase in hospitalizations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02846779.

Project description:BackgroundDespite improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of depression, primary care provider (PCP) discussion regarding suicidal thoughts among patients with depressive symptoms remains low.ObjectiveTo determine whether a targeted depression public service announcement (PSA) video or an individually tailored interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) leads to increased primary care provider (PCP) discussion of suicidal thoughts in patients with elevated risk for clinical depression when compared to an attention control.DesignRandomized control trial at five different healthcare systems in Northern California; two academic, two Veterans Affairs (VA), and one group-model health maintenance organization (HMO).ParticipantsEight-hundred sixty-seven participants, with mean age 51.7; 43.9% women, 43.4% from a racial/ethnic minority group.InterventionThe PSA was targeted to gender and socio-economic status, and designed to encourage patients to seek depression care or request information regarding depression. The IMCP was an individually tailored interactive health message designed to activate patients to discuss possible depressive symptoms. The attention control was a sleep hygiene video.Main measuresClinician reported discussion of suicidal thoughts. Analyses were stratified by depressive symptom level (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9] score < 9 [mild or lower] versus ≥ 10 [at least moderate]).Key resultsAmong patients with a PHQ-9 score ≥ 10, PCP discussion of suicidal thoughts was significantly higher in the IMCP group than in the control group (adjusted odds ratio = 2.33, 95% confidence interval = 1.5, 5.10, p = 0.03). There were no significant effects of either intervention on PCP discussion of suicidal thoughts among patients with a PHQ-9 score < 9.ConclusionsExposure of patients with at least moderate depressive symptoms to an individually tailored intervention designed to increase patient engagement in depression care led to increased PCP discussion of suicidal thoughts.

Dataset Information

A randomized trial examining the effect of predictive analytics and tailored interventions on the cost of care.

Publications

A randomized trial examining the effect of predictive analytics and tailored interventions on the cost of care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets