BACKGROUND: Comparing disease management programs and their effects is difficult because of wide variability in program intensity and complexity. The purpose of this effort was to develop an instrument that can be used to describe the intensity and complexity of heart failure (HF) disease management programs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Specific composition criteria were taken from the American Heart Association (AHA) taxonomy of disease management and hierarchically scored to allow users to describe the intensity and complexity of the domains and subdomains of HF disease management programs. The HF Disease Management Scoring Instrument (HF-DMSI) incorporates 6 of the 8 domains from the taxonomy: recipient, intervention content, delivery personnel, method of communication, intensity/complexity, and environment. The 3 intervention content subdomains (education/counseling, medication management, and peer support) are described separately. In this first test of the HF-DMSI, overall intensity (measured as duration) and complexity were rated using an ordinal scoring system. Possible scores reflect a clinical rationale and differ by category, with zero given only if the element could potentially be missing (eg, surveillance by remote monitoring). Content validity was evident as the instrument matches the existing AHA taxonomy. After revision and refinement, 2 authors obtained an inter-rater reliability intraclass correlation coefficient score of 0.918 (confidence interval, 0.880 to 0.944, P<0.001) in their rating of 12 studies. The areas with most variability among programs were delivery personnel and method of communication. CONCLUSIONS: The HF-DMSI is useful for describing the intensity and complexity of HF disease management programs.
BACKGROUND: Comparing disease management programs and their effects is difficult because of wide variability in program intensity and complexity. The purpose of this effort was to develop an instrument that can be used to describe the intensity and complexity of heart failure (HF) disease management programs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Specific composition criteria were taken from the American Heart Association (AHA) taxonomy of disease management and hierarchically scored to allow users to describe the intensity and complexity of the domains and subdomains of HF disease management programs. The HF Disease Management Scoring Instrument (HF-DMSI) incorporates 6 of the 8 domains from the taxonomy: recipient, intervention content, delivery personnel, method of communication, intensity/complexity, and environment. The 3 intervention content subdomains (education/counseling, medication management, and peer support) are described separately. In this first test of the HF-DMSI, overall intensity (measured as duration) and complexity were rated using an ordinal scoring system. Possible scores reflect a clinical rationale and differ by category, with zero given only if the element could potentially be missing (eg, surveillance by remote monitoring). Content validity was evident as the instrument matches the existing AHA taxonomy. After revision and refinement, 2 authors obtained an inter-rater reliability intraclass correlation coefficient score of 0.918 (confidence interval, 0.880 to 0.944, P<0.001) in their rating of 12 studies. The areas with most variability among programs were delivery personnel and method of communication. CONCLUSIONS: The HF-DMSI is useful for describing the intensity and complexity of HF disease management programs.
Authors: Pupalan Iyngkaran; Andrew Wilson; James Wong; David Prior; David Kaye; David L Hare; Peter Bergin; Michael Jelinem Journal: Curr Cardiol Rev Date: 2021
Authors: Harindra C Wijeysundera; Gina Trubiani; Lusine Abrahamyan; Nicholas Mitsakakis; William Witteman; Mike Paulden; Gabrielle van der Velde; Kori Kingsbury; Murray Krahn Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Pupalan Iyngkaran; Jeff Tinsley; David Smith; Mark Haste; Kangaharan Nadarajan; Marcus Ilton; Malcolm Battersby; Simon Stewart; Alex Brown Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 2.692