疾病管理对处方药治疗的影响:什么是正确的质量措施?

Soeren Mattke, Arvind K Jain, Elizabeth M Sloss, Randy Hirscher, Giacomo Bergamo, June F O'Leary
{"title":"疾病管理对处方药治疗的影响:什么是正确的质量措施?","authors":"Soeren Mattke,&nbsp;Arvind K Jain,&nbsp;Elizabeth M Sloss,&nbsp;Randy Hirscher,&nbsp;Giacomo Bergamo,&nbsp;June F O'Leary","doi":"10.1089/dis.2006.635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Measures of medication adherence have become common parameters with which disease management (DM) programs are being evaluated, leading to the question of how this concept should be measured in the particular context of a DM intervention. We hypothesize that DM improves adherence to prescriptions more than the rate with which prescriptions are being filled. We used health plan claims data to construct 13 common measures of medication adherence for five chronic conditions. The measures were operationalized in three different ways: the Prescription Fill Rate (PFR), which requires only one prescription; the Medication Possession Ratio (MPR), which requires a supply that covers at least 80% of the year; and the Length of Gap (LOG), which requires no gap greater than 30 days between prescriptions. We compared results from a baseline year to results during the first year of a DM program. Changes in adherence were quite small in the first year of the intervention, with no changes greater than six percentage points. In the intervention year, three measures showed a significant increase based on all three operational definitions, but two measures paradoxically decreased based on the PFR. For both, the MPR and the LOG suggested either no change or significant improvement. None of the MPR and LOG measures pointed toward significantly lower compliance in the intervention year. Different ways to operationalize the concept of medication adherence can lead to fundamentally different conclusions. While more complex, MPR- and LOG-based measures could be more appropriate for DM evaluation. Our initial results, however, need to be confirmed by data covering longer term follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"10 2","pages":"91-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2006.635","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of disease management on prescription drug treatment: what is the right quality measure?\",\"authors\":\"Soeren Mattke,&nbsp;Arvind K Jain,&nbsp;Elizabeth M Sloss,&nbsp;Randy Hirscher,&nbsp;Giacomo Bergamo,&nbsp;June F O'Leary\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/dis.2006.635\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Measures of medication adherence have become common parameters with which disease management (DM) programs are being evaluated, leading to the question of how this concept should be measured in the particular context of a DM intervention. We hypothesize that DM improves adherence to prescriptions more than the rate with which prescriptions are being filled. We used health plan claims data to construct 13 common measures of medication adherence for five chronic conditions. The measures were operationalized in three different ways: the Prescription Fill Rate (PFR), which requires only one prescription; the Medication Possession Ratio (MPR), which requires a supply that covers at least 80% of the year; and the Length of Gap (LOG), which requires no gap greater than 30 days between prescriptions. We compared results from a baseline year to results during the first year of a DM program. Changes in adherence were quite small in the first year of the intervention, with no changes greater than six percentage points. In the intervention year, three measures showed a significant increase based on all three operational definitions, but two measures paradoxically decreased based on the PFR. For both, the MPR and the LOG suggested either no change or significant improvement. None of the MPR and LOG measures pointed toward significantly lower compliance in the intervention year. Different ways to operationalize the concept of medication adherence can lead to fundamentally different conclusions. While more complex, MPR- and LOG-based measures could be more appropriate for DM evaluation. Our initial results, however, need to be confirmed by data covering longer term follow-up.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51235,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disease Management : Dm\",\"volume\":\"10 2\",\"pages\":\"91-100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2006.635\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Disease Management : Dm\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2006.635\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disease Management : Dm","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2006.635","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

药物依从性的测量已经成为疾病管理(DM)项目评估的常用参数,这导致了如何在DM干预的特定背景下测量这一概念的问题。我们假设右美沙芬能提高处方依从性,而不是处方的配药率。我们使用健康计划索赔数据来构建针对五种慢性疾病的13种常见药物依从性措施。这些措施以三种不同的方式实施:处方填充率(PFR),只需要一张处方;药物占有比率(MPR),要求供应至少覆盖一年的80%;以及间隔时间(LOG),要求处方间隔不超过30天。我们将基线年的结果与DM项目第一年的结果进行比较。在干预的第一年,依从性的变化非常小,变化不超过6个百分点。在干预年度,根据所有三种操作定义,有三项措施显着增加,但根据PFR,有两项措施矛盾地减少。对于两者,MPR和LOG要么没有变化,要么有显著改善。在干预年度,MPR和LOG指标均未显示依从性明显降低。实施药物依从性概念的不同方法可能导致根本不同的结论。基于MPR和log的方法虽然更复杂,但可能更适合于DM评估。然而,我们的初步结果需要通过长期随访的数据来证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Effect of disease management on prescription drug treatment: what is the right quality measure?

Measures of medication adherence have become common parameters with which disease management (DM) programs are being evaluated, leading to the question of how this concept should be measured in the particular context of a DM intervention. We hypothesize that DM improves adherence to prescriptions more than the rate with which prescriptions are being filled. We used health plan claims data to construct 13 common measures of medication adherence for five chronic conditions. The measures were operationalized in three different ways: the Prescription Fill Rate (PFR), which requires only one prescription; the Medication Possession Ratio (MPR), which requires a supply that covers at least 80% of the year; and the Length of Gap (LOG), which requires no gap greater than 30 days between prescriptions. We compared results from a baseline year to results during the first year of a DM program. Changes in adherence were quite small in the first year of the intervention, with no changes greater than six percentage points. In the intervention year, three measures showed a significant increase based on all three operational definitions, but two measures paradoxically decreased based on the PFR. For both, the MPR and the LOG suggested either no change or significant improvement. None of the MPR and LOG measures pointed toward significantly lower compliance in the intervention year. Different ways to operationalize the concept of medication adherence can lead to fundamentally different conclusions. While more complex, MPR- and LOG-based measures could be more appropriate for DM evaluation. Our initial results, however, need to be confirmed by data covering longer term follow-up.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Improving medication adherence with a targeted, technology-driven disease management intervention. Weight loss and maintenance outcomes using moderate and severe caloric restriction in an outpatient setting. Where we've gone wrong. Disease management programs for the underserved. Co-occurring mental illness and health care utilization and expenditures in adults with obesity and chronic physical illness.
×
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