Ein neuer Ansatz für Versorgungsevaluationen: Erprobung des PopGroupers für Vergleichsgruppenbildung und Morbiditätsmessung am Beispiel der DMP KHK und Brustkrebs

IF 1.5 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Philipp Hengel , Chrissa Tsatsaronis , Reinhard Busse , Wilm Quentin
{"title":"Ein neuer Ansatz für Versorgungsevaluationen: Erprobung des PopGroupers für Vergleichsgruppenbildung und Morbiditätsmessung am Beispiel der DMP KHK und Brustkrebs","authors":"Philipp Hengel ,&nbsp;Chrissa Tsatsaronis ,&nbsp;Reinhard Busse ,&nbsp;Wilm Quentin","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2026.01.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The PopGrouper is a population-based classification system that was created using data from a large German statutory health insurance fund. It annually assigns each individual to one mutually exclusive, clinically meaningful, and cost-homogeneous group at different levels of aggregation. This study tests the PopGrouper for matching and as a morbidity outcome measure in healthcare evaluations.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Disease management programs (DMPs) for coronary heart disease (CHD) and breast cancer were analyzed in a quasi-experimental design (matching: 2021, enrolment: 2022, follow-up: 2023). Insured persons were assigned 1:1 to the intervention (IG: DMP) or to the control group (CG: usual care) using a standard propensity score matching (benchmark), a pure and an extended PopGroup matching including disease-specific variables. Morbidity was assessed by comparing PopGroup distributions between IG and CG before and after intervention.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In the CHD sample (CG pool n = 29,680; IG n = 7,557) and breast cancer sample (n = 111,509; n = 3,321), sample sizes were reduced by up to 3% after matching. Both benchmark and extended PopGroup matching achieved good covariate balance. Follow-up showed a higher proportion of patients with active breast cancer treatment in the IG than in the CG. CHD patients in the CG more often received no CHD treatment, had no health care use/disease, or were classified as high-cost cases.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Extended PopGroup matching achieved results that are comparable to the benchmark with substantially less effort. As an outcome measure, the PopGrouper’s multidimensional morbidity mapping offers opportunities for exploratory analyses, including process quality, and can be combined with established endpoints such as mortality. The PopGrouper could contribute to a higher level of standardization in healthcare evaluations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46628,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","volume":"202 ","pages":"Pages 64-73"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921726000036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The PopGrouper is a population-based classification system that was created using data from a large German statutory health insurance fund. It annually assigns each individual to one mutually exclusive, clinically meaningful, and cost-homogeneous group at different levels of aggregation. This study tests the PopGrouper for matching and as a morbidity outcome measure in healthcare evaluations.

Methods

Disease management programs (DMPs) for coronary heart disease (CHD) and breast cancer were analyzed in a quasi-experimental design (matching: 2021, enrolment: 2022, follow-up: 2023). Insured persons were assigned 1:1 to the intervention (IG: DMP) or to the control group (CG: usual care) using a standard propensity score matching (benchmark), a pure and an extended PopGroup matching including disease-specific variables. Morbidity was assessed by comparing PopGroup distributions between IG and CG before and after intervention.

Results

In the CHD sample (CG pool n = 29,680; IG n = 7,557) and breast cancer sample (n = 111,509; n = 3,321), sample sizes were reduced by up to 3% after matching. Both benchmark and extended PopGroup matching achieved good covariate balance. Follow-up showed a higher proportion of patients with active breast cancer treatment in the IG than in the CG. CHD patients in the CG more often received no CHD treatment, had no health care use/disease, or were classified as high-cost cases.

Discussion

Extended PopGroup matching achieved results that are comparable to the benchmark with substantially less effort. As an outcome measure, the PopGrouper’s multidimensional morbidity mapping offers opportunities for exploratory analyses, including process quality, and can be combined with established endpoints such as mortality. The PopGrouper could contribute to a higher level of standardization in healthcare evaluations.
[一种医疗保健评估的新方法:使用冠心病和乳腺癌疾病管理程序评估PopGrouper的匹配和发病率测量]。
背景:PopGrouper是一个基于人口的分类系统,它是使用德国大型法定健康保险基金的数据创建的。它每年将每个个体分配到一个相互排斥的、有临床意义的、成本均匀的不同聚集水平的组。本研究测试了PopGrouper在医疗保健评估中的匹配和作为发病率结果测量。方法:采用准实验设计对冠心病(CHD)和乳腺癌的疾病管理方案(DMPs)进行分析(配对:2021,入组:2022,随访:2023)。使用标准倾向评分匹配(基准),纯和扩展的PopGroup匹配(包括疾病特异性变量),将被保险人按1:1分配到干预组(IG: DMP)或对照组(CG:常规护理)。通过比较干预前后IG和CG之间的PopGroup分布来评估发病率。结果:在冠心病样本(CG库n = 29,680;IG库n = 7,557)和乳腺癌样本(n = 111,509;n = 3,321)中,匹配后样本量最多减少3%。基准和扩展PopGroup匹配都取得了良好的协变量平衡。随访显示,IG组积极接受乳腺癌治疗的患者比例高于CG组。CG组的冠心病患者往往没有接受冠心病治疗,没有医疗保健使用/疾病,或被归类为高费用病例。讨论:扩展的PopGroup匹配以较少的工作量获得了与基准测试相当的结果。作为结果测量,PopGrouper的多维发病率映射为探索性分析提供了机会,包括过程质量,并且可以与死亡率等既定终点相结合。PopGrouper可以提高医疗保健评估的标准化水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
129
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书