Utilisation of a cocreation methodology to develop claims-based indicators for feedback on implementation of comparative effectiveness research results into practice.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Vera de Weerdt, Hanna Willems, Geeske Hofstra, Sjoerd Repping, Xander Koolman, Eric van der Hijden
{"title":"Utilisation of a cocreation methodology to develop claims-based indicators for feedback on implementation of comparative effectiveness research results into practice.","authors":"Vera de Weerdt, Hanna Willems, Geeske Hofstra, Sjoerd Repping, Xander Koolman, Eric van der Hijden","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Comparative effectiveness research (CER) often fails to create quality improvement since implementation of CER results in clinical practice is lacking. Claims-based Audit & Feedback (A&F) provides a resource efficient tool to stimulate implementation, but it is unknown whether medical professionals accept claims-based A&F in the context of CER. Therefore, in this study, we developed claims-based indicators using a cocreation approach and evaluated medical professionals' perception regarding the validity and acceptability of these indicators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between July 2019 and November 2021, we used a cocreation approach with medical experts to develop claims-based indicators for six CER trials. The aim is to use the indicators for group level feedback on implementation of CER results to medical professionals across all healthcare providers in the Netherlands. To build the indicators, we used the most recent available Dutch national healthcare-related claims data of the year 2017. The cocreation process consisted of the following steps: (1) defining the target indicator, (2) selecting relevant claims codes, (3) testing feasibility of the indicators using Dutch claims data, (4) discussing results of feasibility testing and (5) defining the final indicators and reflecting on the acceptability of the indicators for feedback on implementation of CER results by the experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Claims-based indicators could not perfectly reflect the CER population for any of the six CER trials. However, the cocreation process did lead to a final indicator that medical experts found acceptable in four of six cases. Recommendations of medical experts for improving claims-based indicators included: select patients with minimal over- or underestimation of the CER population, use proxies to identify patients, determine incidence rather than prevalence for chronic conditions and use data linkage with diagnostic test results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A cocreation approach was a successful way to develop claims-based indicators on implementation of CER results, which were imperfect, but in some cases still acceptable as feedback to medical experts. Thus, for certain topics, claims data may provide a resource efficient data source for A&F interventions aiming to implement CER trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) often fails to create quality improvement since implementation of CER results in clinical practice is lacking. Claims-based Audit & Feedback (A&F) provides a resource efficient tool to stimulate implementation, but it is unknown whether medical professionals accept claims-based A&F in the context of CER. Therefore, in this study, we developed claims-based indicators using a cocreation approach and evaluated medical professionals' perception regarding the validity and acceptability of these indicators.

Methods: Between July 2019 and November 2021, we used a cocreation approach with medical experts to develop claims-based indicators for six CER trials. The aim is to use the indicators for group level feedback on implementation of CER results to medical professionals across all healthcare providers in the Netherlands. To build the indicators, we used the most recent available Dutch national healthcare-related claims data of the year 2017. The cocreation process consisted of the following steps: (1) defining the target indicator, (2) selecting relevant claims codes, (3) testing feasibility of the indicators using Dutch claims data, (4) discussing results of feasibility testing and (5) defining the final indicators and reflecting on the acceptability of the indicators for feedback on implementation of CER results by the experts.

Results: Claims-based indicators could not perfectly reflect the CER population for any of the six CER trials. However, the cocreation process did lead to a final indicator that medical experts found acceptable in four of six cases. Recommendations of medical experts for improving claims-based indicators included: select patients with minimal over- or underestimation of the CER population, use proxies to identify patients, determine incidence rather than prevalence for chronic conditions and use data linkage with diagnostic test results.

Conclusion: A cocreation approach was a successful way to develop claims-based indicators on implementation of CER results, which were imperfect, but in some cases still acceptable as feedback to medical experts. Thus, for certain topics, claims data may provide a resource efficient data source for A&F interventions aiming to implement CER trials.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信