Enhancing pharmacist intervention targeting based on patient clustering with unsupervised machine learning.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1080/14737167.2024.2406810
Chi Chun Steve Tsang, Junling Wang
{"title":"Enhancing pharmacist intervention targeting based on patient clustering with unsupervised machine learning.","authors":"Chi Chun Steve Tsang, Junling Wang","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2406810","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Adherence to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Medical Care is low. This study aimed to assist pharmacists in identifying patients for diabetes control interventions using unsupervised machine learning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study analyzed the 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and used a k-mode cluster analysis. Patient features analyzed were adherence to a select set of preventive measures from the ADA Standards of Medical Care (HbA1c test, foot examination, blood cholesterol test, dilated eye examination, and influenza vaccination) and some patient characteristics (age, gender, health insurance, insulin use, and diabetes-related complications).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 1,219 patients with self-reported diabetes, and the adherence rate to the ADA standards was 33.72%. Five distinct clusters emerged: (A) moderate-complexity, privately insured male; (B) moderate-complexity, publicly insured female; (C) low-complexity, privately insured female; (D) high-complexity, publicly insured female; (E) moderate-complexity, publicly insured male. Groups B, C, and E exhibited nonadherence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pharmacists can target publicly insured elderly (Groups B and E) and privately insured middle-aged females (Group C) for interventions. For instance, pharmacists may help patients in Groups B and E locate existing resources in their insurance program and remind those in Group C of the importance of adequate diabetes care.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"187-195"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786995/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2406810","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Adherence to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Medical Care is low. This study aimed to assist pharmacists in identifying patients for diabetes control interventions using unsupervised machine learning.

Methods: This study analyzed the 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and used a k-mode cluster analysis. Patient features analyzed were adherence to a select set of preventive measures from the ADA Standards of Medical Care (HbA1c test, foot examination, blood cholesterol test, dilated eye examination, and influenza vaccination) and some patient characteristics (age, gender, health insurance, insulin use, and diabetes-related complications).

Results: The study included 1,219 patients with self-reported diabetes, and the adherence rate to the ADA standards was 33.72%. Five distinct clusters emerged: (A) moderate-complexity, privately insured male; (B) moderate-complexity, publicly insured female; (C) low-complexity, privately insured female; (D) high-complexity, publicly insured female; (E) moderate-complexity, publicly insured male. Groups B, C, and E exhibited nonadherence.

Conclusions: Pharmacists can target publicly insured elderly (Groups B and E) and privately insured middle-aged females (Group C) for interventions. For instance, pharmacists may help patients in Groups B and E locate existing resources in their insurance program and remind those in Group C of the importance of adequate diabetes care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于无监督机器学习的患者聚类,提高药剂师干预的针对性。
目标:美国糖尿病协会(ADA)医疗护理标准的遵守率很低。本研究旨在利用无监督机器学习,帮助药剂师识别需要进行糖尿病控制干预的患者:本研究分析了 2021 年医疗支出小组调查,并使用了 K 模式聚类分析。分析的患者特征包括是否遵守《美国糖尿病协会医疗标准》(ADA Standards of Medical Care)中精选的一系列预防措施(HbA1c 检测、足部检查、血液胆固醇检测、散瞳验光和流感疫苗接种)以及一些患者特征(年龄、性别、医疗保险、胰岛素使用和糖尿病相关并发症):研究包括 1,219 名自我报告的糖尿病患者,ADA 标准的遵守率为 33.72%。研究发现了五个不同的群组:(A)中等复杂性,私人投保的男性;(B)中等复杂性,公共投保的女性;(C)低复杂性,私人投保的女性;(D)高复杂性,公共投保的女性;(E)中等复杂性,公共投保的男性。B、C 和 E 组表现出不依从性:药剂师可针对投保公费的老年人(B 组和 E 组)和投保私费的中年女性(C 组)采取干预措施。例如,药剂师可以帮助 B 组和 E 组患者找到其保险计划中的现有资源,并提醒 C 组患者充分护理糖尿病的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
期刊最新文献
Preferences of nurses in the United Kingdom for attributes of pediatric hexavalent vaccines: a discrete-choice experiment. Patient-relevance of outcome measures in breast cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional comparative analysis of patient preferences and trials conducted between 2014 and 2024. Evaluation of biological drug consumption in Italy during 2022: a comparative analysis between two healthcare facilities. Cost comparison of F(ab')2 and Fab antivenoms for pit viper envenomation in the United States: a real-world analysis. Autologous stem-cell transplantation and maintenance therapy for transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients: cost-effectiveness analysis based on a network meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1