Cargando…

Density of Patient-Sharing Networks: Impact on the Value of Parkinson Care

Background: Optimal care for Parkinson’s disease (PD) requires coordination and collaboration between providers within a complex care network. Individual patients have personalised networks of their own providers, creating a unique informal network of providers who treat (‘share’) the same patient....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vlaanderen, Floris P., de Man, Yvonne, Tanke, Marit A. C., Munneke, Marten, Atsma, Femke, Meinders, Marjan J., Jeurissen, Patrick P. T., Bloem, Bastiaan R., Krijthe, Jesse H., Groenewoud, Stef
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Kerman University of Medical Sciences 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9808175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33812348
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2021.15
_version_ 1784862880176275456
author Vlaanderen, Floris P.
de Man, Yvonne
Tanke, Marit A. C.
Munneke, Marten
Atsma, Femke
Meinders, Marjan J.
Jeurissen, Patrick P. T.
Bloem, Bastiaan R.
Krijthe, Jesse H.
Groenewoud, Stef
author_facet Vlaanderen, Floris P.
de Man, Yvonne
Tanke, Marit A. C.
Munneke, Marten
Atsma, Femke
Meinders, Marjan J.
Jeurissen, Patrick P. T.
Bloem, Bastiaan R.
Krijthe, Jesse H.
Groenewoud, Stef
author_sort Vlaanderen, Floris P.
collection PubMed
description Background: Optimal care for Parkinson’s disease (PD) requires coordination and collaboration between providers within a complex care network. Individual patients have personalised networks of their own providers, creating a unique informal network of providers who treat (‘share’) the same patient. These ‘patient-sharing networks’ differ in density, ie, the number of identical patients they share. Denser patient-sharing networks might reflect better care provision, since providers who share many patients might have made efforts to improve their mutual care delivery. We evaluated whether the density of these patient-sharing networks affects patient outcomes and costs. Methods: We analysed medical claims data from all PD patients in the Netherlands between 2012 and 2016. We focused on seven professional disciplines that are commonly involved in Parkinson care. We calculated for each patient the density score: the average number of patients that each patient’s providers shared. Density scores could range from 1.00 (which might reflect poor collaboration) to 83.00 (which might reflect better collaboration). This score was also calculated at the hospital level by averaging the scores for all patients belonging to a specific hospital. Using logistic and linear regression analyses we estimated the relationship between density scores and health outcomes, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs. Results: The average density score varied considerably (average 6.7, SD 8.2). Adjusted for confounders, higher density scores were associated with a lower risk of PD-related complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.901; P<.001) and with lower healthcare costs (coefficients: -0.018, P=.005). Higher density scores were associated with more frequent involvement of neurologists (coefficient 0.068), physiotherapists (coefficient 0.052) and occupational therapists (coefficient 0.048) (P values all <.001). Conclusion: Patient sharing networks showed large variations in density, which appears unwanted as denser networks are associated with better outcomes and lower costs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9808175
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Kerman University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98081752023-01-10 Density of Patient-Sharing Networks: Impact on the Value of Parkinson Care Vlaanderen, Floris P. de Man, Yvonne Tanke, Marit A. C. Munneke, Marten Atsma, Femke Meinders, Marjan J. Jeurissen, Patrick P. T. Bloem, Bastiaan R. Krijthe, Jesse H. Groenewoud, Stef Int J Health Policy Manag Original Article Background: Optimal care for Parkinson’s disease (PD) requires coordination and collaboration between providers within a complex care network. Individual patients have personalised networks of their own providers, creating a unique informal network of providers who treat (‘share’) the same patient. These ‘patient-sharing networks’ differ in density, ie, the number of identical patients they share. Denser patient-sharing networks might reflect better care provision, since providers who share many patients might have made efforts to improve their mutual care delivery. We evaluated whether the density of these patient-sharing networks affects patient outcomes and costs. Methods: We analysed medical claims data from all PD patients in the Netherlands between 2012 and 2016. We focused on seven professional disciplines that are commonly involved in Parkinson care. We calculated for each patient the density score: the average number of patients that each patient’s providers shared. Density scores could range from 1.00 (which might reflect poor collaboration) to 83.00 (which might reflect better collaboration). This score was also calculated at the hospital level by averaging the scores for all patients belonging to a specific hospital. Using logistic and linear regression analyses we estimated the relationship between density scores and health outcomes, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs. Results: The average density score varied considerably (average 6.7, SD 8.2). Adjusted for confounders, higher density scores were associated with a lower risk of PD-related complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.901; P<.001) and with lower healthcare costs (coefficients: -0.018, P=.005). Higher density scores were associated with more frequent involvement of neurologists (coefficient 0.068), physiotherapists (coefficient 0.052) and occupational therapists (coefficient 0.048) (P values all <.001). Conclusion: Patient sharing networks showed large variations in density, which appears unwanted as denser networks are associated with better outcomes and lower costs. Kerman University of Medical Sciences 2021-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9808175/ /pubmed/33812348 http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2021.15 Text en © 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Vlaanderen, Floris P.
de Man, Yvonne
Tanke, Marit A. C.
Munneke, Marten
Atsma, Femke
Meinders, Marjan J.
Jeurissen, Patrick P. T.
Bloem, Bastiaan R.
Krijthe, Jesse H.
Groenewoud, Stef
Density of Patient-Sharing Networks: Impact on the Value of Parkinson Care
title Density of Patient-Sharing Networks: Impact on the Value of Parkinson Care
title_full Density of Patient-Sharing Networks: Impact on the Value of Parkinson Care
title_fullStr Density of Patient-Sharing Networks: Impact on the Value of Parkinson Care
title_full_unstemmed Density of Patient-Sharing Networks: Impact on the Value of Parkinson Care
title_short Density of Patient-Sharing Networks: Impact on the Value of Parkinson Care
title_sort density of patient-sharing networks: impact on the value of parkinson care
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9808175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33812348
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2021.15
work_keys_str_mv AT vlaanderenflorisp densityofpatientsharingnetworksimpactonthevalueofparkinsoncare
AT demanyvonne densityofpatientsharingnetworksimpactonthevalueofparkinsoncare
AT tankemaritac densityofpatientsharingnetworksimpactonthevalueofparkinsoncare
AT munnekemarten densityofpatientsharingnetworksimpactonthevalueofparkinsoncare
AT atsmafemke densityofpatientsharingnetworksimpactonthevalueofparkinsoncare
AT meindersmarjanj densityofpatientsharingnetworksimpactonthevalueofparkinsoncare
AT jeurissenpatrickpt densityofpatientsharingnetworksimpactonthevalueofparkinsoncare
AT bloembastiaanr densityofpatientsharingnetworksimpactonthevalueofparkinsoncare
AT krijthejesseh densityofpatientsharingnetworksimpactonthevalueofparkinsoncare
AT groenewoudstef densityofpatientsharingnetworksimpactonthevalueofparkinsoncare