| Literature DB >> 16805909 |
Anders Halling1, Gerd Fridh, Ingvar Ovhed.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individualbased measures for comorbidity are of increasing importance for planning and funding health care services. No measurement for individualbased healthcare costs exist in Sweden. The aim of this study was to validate the Johns Hopkins ACG Case-Mix System's predictive value of polypharmacy (regular use of 4 or more prescription medicines) used as a proxy for health care costs in an elderly population and to study if the prediction could be improved by adding variables from a population based study i.e. level of education, functional status indicators and health perception.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16805909 PMCID: PMC1543633 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-171
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Proportion of population with a specific degree of utilisation of primary health care and polypharmacy by age and gender.
| RUBa | 60–69 | 70–79 | 80–89 | 90–96 | |
| 0 | 59.7 | 21.9 | 19.2 | 36.4 | |
| 1 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 8.2 | 11.4 | |
| 2 | 15.0 | 21.3 | 19.8 | 17.0 | |
| 3 | 18.4 | 46.9 | 45.3 | 28.4 | |
| 4 | 3.4 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 6.8 | |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 1.3 | 0 | |
| Polypharmacy (%)b | 19.4 | 34.4 | 50.3 | 58.0 | |
| RUB | 60–69 | 70–79 | 80–89 | 90–96 | |
| 0 | 64.5 | 21.6 | 23.7 | 22.2 | |
| 1 | 2.1 | 6.8 | 7.3 | 5.6 | |
| 2 | 14.5 | 25.7 | 23.7 | 16.7 | |
| 3 | 17.2 | 38.5 | 39.6 | 47.2 | |
| 4 | 1.6 | 6.1 | 4.8 | 8.3 | |
| 5 | 0 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 0 | |
| Polypharmacy (%) | 14.5 | 29.7 | 39.1 | 61.1 | |
a Resource utilisation band (RUB) according to the Johns Hopkins Case-mix system.
b Polypharmacy: regular use of four or more prescribed medications.
Prevalence of missing values in independent variables.
| 60–69 | 70–79 | 80–89 | 90–96 | |
| Level of education | 1.9 | 4.2 | 13.1 | 21.1 |
| IADL function | 0.5 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 |
| SCB | 2.4 | 4.7 | 16.5 | 37.6 |
| Ware | 2.4 | 6.3 | 20.2 | 43.1 |
| Level of education | 3.3 | 5.4 | 11.0 | 21.4 |
| IADL function | 0 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0 |
| SCB | 3.2 | 6.1 | 13.0 | 38.1 |
| Ware | 4.8 | 8.1 | 15.0 | 40.5 |
Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for use of polypharmacy (4 or more regular prescription medicines) according to resource utilisation band (RUB).
| RUB | OR | model A | OR | model B | OR | model C | OR | model D |
| 0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||
| 1 | 0.9 | 0.4–1.8 | 0.9 | 0.4–1.7 | 0.9 | 0.5–1.9 | 1.0 | 0.5–2.1 |
| 2 | 1.2 | 0.8–1.9 | 1.2 | 0.8–1.9 | 1.3 | 0.8–2.1 | 1.3 | 0.8–2.1 |
| 3 | 3.0*** | 2.1–4.4 | 3.0*** | 2.0–4.4 | 3.3*** | 2.2–4.9 | 3.0*** | 2.0–4.6 |
| 4 | 6.8*** | 3.5–13.5 | 6.7*** | 3.4–13.2 | 8.2*** | 4.0–16.8 | 6.5*** | 3.1–13.6 |
| 5 | 6.4* | 1.2–35.2 | 7.0* | 1.2–39.6 | 7.8* | 1.5–41.0 | 4.8 | 1.1–21.3 |
* significant at 5%, ** significant at 1%, *** significant at 0.1%
model A: adjusted for age
model B: adjusted for age and sex
model C: adjusted for age, sex, level of education and IADL function
model D: adjusted for age, sex, level of education, IADL function, SCB and Ware
Sensitivity, specificity, positive- and negative predicitive value (%) for detecting use of polypharmacy (4 or more regular prescription medicines) according to resource utilisation band (RUB).
| model A | model B | model C | model D | model E | |
| Sensitivity | 31.9 | 33.6 | 38.4 | 46.3 | 41.2 |
| Specificity | 88.5 | 89.2 | 89.8 | 90.1 | 90.2 |
| Positive predicitive value | 55.4 | 58.3 | 62.7 | 67.8 | 65.5 |
| Negative predicitive value | 74.4 | 75.0 | 76.5 | 78.9 | 77.4 |
| Correctly classified | 71.0 | 72.0 | 73.9 | 76.6 | 75.1 |
| Area under ROC curve | 0.72 (0.69–0.75)a | 0.73 (0.70–0.76) | 0.76 (0.73–0.79) | 0.80 (0.77–0.82) | 0.77 (0.74–0.80) |
| Goodness-of-fit | 0.90 | 0.39 | 0.64 | 0.31 | 0.01 |
a 95% confidence interval
model A: adjusted for age
model B: adjusted for sex and age
model C: adjusted for sex, age, level of education and IADL function
model D: adjusted for sex, age, level of education, IADL function, SCB and Ware
model E: model D excluding RUB