4.4 Review

Which Triple Aim related measures are being used to evaluate population management initiatives? An international comparative analysis

期刊

HEALTH POLICY
卷 120, 期 5, 页码 471-485

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.03.008

关键词

Population management; Triple Aim; Population health; Quality of care; Costs; Measures

资金

  1. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment [S133002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Population management (PM) initiatives are introduced in order to create sustainable health care systems. These initiatives should focus on the continuum of health and well-being of a population by introducing interventions that integrate various services. To be successful they should pursue the Triple Aim, i.e. simultaneously improve population health and quality of care while reducing costs per capita. This study explores how PM initiatives measure the Triple Aim in practice. Method: An exploratory search was combined with expert consultations to identify relevant PM initiatives. These were analyzed based on general characteristics, utilized measures and related selection criteria. Results: In total 865 measures were used by 20 PM initiatives. All quality of care domains were included by at least 11 PM initiatives, while most domains of population health and costs were included by less than 7 PM initiatives. Although their goals showed substantial overlap, the measures applied showed few similarities between PM initiatives and were predominantly selected based on local priority areas and data availability. Conclusion: Most PM initiatives do not measure the full scope of the Triple Aim. Additionally, variety between measures limits comparability between PM initiatives. Consensus on the coverage of Triple Aim domains and a set of standardized measures could further both the inclusion of the various domains as well as the comparability between PM initiatives. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据