Comparative Performance of Comorbidity Indices in Discriminating Health-related Behaviors and Outcomes

Huang-Tz Ou PhD , Bhramar Mukherjee PhD , Steven R. Erickson PharmD , John D. Piette PhD , Richard P. Bagozzi PhD , Rajesh Balkrishnan PhD
{"title":"Comparative Performance of Comorbidity Indices in Discriminating Health-related Behaviors and Outcomes","authors":"Huang-Tz Ou PhD ,&nbsp;Bhramar Mukherjee PhD ,&nbsp;Steven R. Erickson PharmD ,&nbsp;John D. Piette PhD ,&nbsp;Richard P. Bagozzi PhD ,&nbsp;Rajesh Balkrishnan PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ehrm.2011.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Objective</h3><p><span><span>Although the predictive ability of the Charlson Index, </span>Elixhauser Index<span> (EI), Chronic Disease Score (CDS), and Health-related </span></span>Quality of Life<span> Comorbidity Index (HRQL-CI) for health care outcomes<span> has been assessed individually, little research has compared the discriminative performance of these indices directly in a single study. The current study compared these indices in discriminating among type 2 diabetes patients varying in demographics and health care outcomes characteristics.</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><p><span>There were 9832 Medicaid patients with type 2 diabetes from 8 states evaluated. Endpoints included demographics (age, race), health care behaviors (physician's diabetes care standard adherence, patient's medication adherence), and health care utilization and expenditures. Discriminative power of comorbidity indices was determined by c-statistics from </span>logistic regression, the shape of receiver operator characteristic curve, and area under the curve.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The CDS demonstrated the best ability in discriminating between age subgroups (c<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.61) and patients who were or were not adherent to their medication (c<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.56). The CDS and HRQL-CI mental index performed similarly in discriminating based on diabetes care standard adherence (c<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.60). The EI had the best discrimination for health care utilization and costs, while HRQL-CI physical index performed similarly to EI in predicting hospitalization admission (c<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.62), and the HRQL-CI mental index performed similarly to the EI in predicting outpatient visits (c<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.74).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The CDS was found to be the best metric for differentiating among patients varying in demographics, physician's diabetes care standard adherence, and patient's medication adherence, while the EI should be the first choice to identify patients at risk of high medical resource use.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":88882,"journal":{"name":"Health outcomes research in medicine","volume":"2 2","pages":"Pages e91-e104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehrm.2011.06.002","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health outcomes research in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877131911000140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background and Objective

Although the predictive ability of the Charlson Index, Elixhauser Index (EI), Chronic Disease Score (CDS), and Health-related Quality of Life Comorbidity Index (HRQL-CI) for health care outcomes has been assessed individually, little research has compared the discriminative performance of these indices directly in a single study. The current study compared these indices in discriminating among type 2 diabetes patients varying in demographics and health care outcomes characteristics.

Study Design

There were 9832 Medicaid patients with type 2 diabetes from 8 states evaluated. Endpoints included demographics (age, race), health care behaviors (physician's diabetes care standard adherence, patient's medication adherence), and health care utilization and expenditures. Discriminative power of comorbidity indices was determined by c-statistics from logistic regression, the shape of receiver operator characteristic curve, and area under the curve.

Results

The CDS demonstrated the best ability in discriminating between age subgroups (c = 0.61) and patients who were or were not adherent to their medication (c = 0.56). The CDS and HRQL-CI mental index performed similarly in discriminating based on diabetes care standard adherence (c = 0.60). The EI had the best discrimination for health care utilization and costs, while HRQL-CI physical index performed similarly to EI in predicting hospitalization admission (c = 0.62), and the HRQL-CI mental index performed similarly to the EI in predicting outpatient visits (c = 0.74).

Conclusions

The CDS was found to be the best metric for differentiating among patients varying in demographics, physician's diabetes care standard adherence, and patient's medication adherence, while the EI should be the first choice to identify patients at risk of high medical resource use.

共病指数在区分健康相关行为和结果中的比较表现
背景与目的虽然Charlson指数、Elixhauser指数(EI)、慢性病评分(CDS)和健康相关生活质量共病指数(HRQL-CI)对卫生保健结果的预测能力已被单独评估,但很少有研究在单一研究中直接比较这些指数的判别性能。目前的研究比较了这些指标在区分不同人口统计学和保健结局特征的2型糖尿病患者中的作用。研究设计对来自8个州的9832名接受医疗补助的2型糖尿病患者进行了评估。终点包括人口统计学(年龄、种族)、医疗保健行为(医生的糖尿病护理标准依从性、患者的药物依从性)和医疗保健利用和支出。共病指数的判别能力由逻辑回归的c统计量、受者算子特征曲线的形状和曲线下面积确定。结果CDS在区分年龄亚组(c = 0.61)和是否坚持用药(c = 0.56)方面表现出最好的能力。CDS和HRQL-CI心理指数在区分糖尿病护理标准依从性方面表现相似(c = 0.60)。EI对医疗保健利用和医疗费用的辨别效果最好,HRQL-CI身体指数与EI在预测住院率方面的表现相似(c = 0.62), HRQL-CI心理指数与EI在预测门诊次数方面的表现相似(c = 0.74)。结论CDS是区分不同人口统计学、医生糖尿病护理标准依从性和患者药物依从性患者的最佳指标,而EI应是识别高医疗资源使用风险患者的首选。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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