强化学习预防医疗补助人群中的急性护理事件:混合方法研究。

IF 2
JMIR AI Pub Date : 2025-10-08 DOI:10.2196/74264
Sanjay Basu, Bhairavi Muralidharan, Parth Sheth, Dan Wanek, John Morgan, Sadiq Patel
{"title":"强化学习预防医疗补助人群中的急性护理事件:混合方法研究。","authors":"Sanjay Basu, Bhairavi Muralidharan, Parth Sheth, Dan Wanek, John Morgan, Sadiq Patel","doi":"10.2196/74264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multidisciplinary care management teams must rapidly prioritize interventions for patients with complex medical and social needs. Current approaches rely on individual training, judgment, and experience, missing opportunities to learn from longitudinal trajectories and prevent adverse outcomes through recommender systems.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to evaluate whether a reinforcement learning approach could outperform standard care management practices in recommending optimal interventions for patients with complex needs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from 3175 Medicaid beneficiaries in care management programs across 2 states from 2023 to 2024, we compared alternative approaches for recommending \"next best step\" interventions: the standard experience-based approach (status quo) and a state-action-reward-state-action (SARSA) reinforcement learning model. We evaluated performance using clinical impact metrics, conducted counterfactual causal inference analyses to estimate reductions in acute care events, assessed fairness across demographic subgroups, and performed qualitative chart reviews where the models differed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In counterfactual analyses, SARSA-guided care management reduced acute care events by 12 percentage points (95% CI 2.2-21.8 percentage points, a 20.7% relative reduction; P=.02) compared to the status quo approach, with a number needed to treat of 8.3 (95% CI 4.6-45.2) to prevent 1 acute event. The approach showed improved fairness across demographic groups, including gender (3.8% vs 5.3% disparity in acute event rates, reduction 1.5%, 95% CI 0.3%-2.7%) and race and ethnicity (5.6% vs 8.9% disparity, reduction 3.3%, 95% CI 1.1%-5.5%). In qualitative reviews, the SARSA model detected and recommended interventions for specific medical-social interactions, such as respiratory issues associated with poor housing quality or food insecurity in individuals with diabetes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SARSA-guided care management shows potential to reduce acute care use compared to standard practice. The approach demonstrates how reinforcement learning can improve complex decision-making in situations where patients face concurrent clinical and social factors while maintaining safety and fairness across demographic subgroups.</p>","PeriodicalId":73551,"journal":{"name":"JMIR AI","volume":"4 ","pages":"e74264"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reinforcement Learning to Prevent Acute Care Events Among Medicaid Populations: Mixed Methods Study.\",\"authors\":\"Sanjay Basu, Bhairavi Muralidharan, Parth Sheth, Dan Wanek, John Morgan, Sadiq Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/74264\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multidisciplinary care management teams must rapidly prioritize interventions for patients with complex medical and social needs. Current approaches rely on individual training, judgment, and experience, missing opportunities to learn from longitudinal trajectories and prevent adverse outcomes through recommender systems.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to evaluate whether a reinforcement learning approach could outperform standard care management practices in recommending optimal interventions for patients with complex needs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from 3175 Medicaid beneficiaries in care management programs across 2 states from 2023 to 2024, we compared alternative approaches for recommending \\\"next best step\\\" interventions: the standard experience-based approach (status quo) and a state-action-reward-state-action (SARSA) reinforcement learning model. We evaluated performance using clinical impact metrics, conducted counterfactual causal inference analyses to estimate reductions in acute care events, assessed fairness across demographic subgroups, and performed qualitative chart reviews where the models differed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In counterfactual analyses, SARSA-guided care management reduced acute care events by 12 percentage points (95% CI 2.2-21.8 percentage points, a 20.7% relative reduction; P=.02) compared to the status quo approach, with a number needed to treat of 8.3 (95% CI 4.6-45.2) to prevent 1 acute event. The approach showed improved fairness across demographic groups, including gender (3.8% vs 5.3% disparity in acute event rates, reduction 1.5%, 95% CI 0.3%-2.7%) and race and ethnicity (5.6% vs 8.9% disparity, reduction 3.3%, 95% CI 1.1%-5.5%). In qualitative reviews, the SARSA model detected and recommended interventions for specific medical-social interactions, such as respiratory issues associated with poor housing quality or food insecurity in individuals with diabetes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SARSA-guided care management shows potential to reduce acute care use compared to standard practice. The approach demonstrates how reinforcement learning can improve complex decision-making in situations where patients face concurrent clinical and social factors while maintaining safety and fairness across demographic subgroups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR AI\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"e74264\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR AI\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/74264\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR AI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/74264","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:多学科护理管理团队必须迅速对具有复杂医疗和社会需求的患者进行优先干预。目前的方法依赖于个人培训、判断和经验,失去了从纵向轨迹中学习的机会,并通过推荐系统预防不良后果。目的:本研究旨在评估强化学习方法在为有复杂需求的患者推荐最佳干预措施方面是否优于标准护理管理实践。方法:利用2023年至2024年两个州医疗管理项目3175名医疗补助受益人的数据,我们比较了推荐“下一个最佳步骤”干预措施的替代方法:标准的基于经验的方法(现状)和国家-行动-奖励-国家-行动(SARSA)强化学习模型。我们使用临床影响指标评估绩效,进行反事实因果推理分析以估计急性护理事件的减少,评估人口统计亚组的公平性,并在模型不同的地方进行定性图表回顾。结果:在反事实分析中,与现状方法相比,sarsa引导的护理管理减少了12个百分点的急性护理事件(95% CI 2.2-21.8个百分点,相对减少20.7%;P= 0.02),需要治疗8.3个(95% CI 4.6-45.2)才能预防1个急性事件。该方法显示不同人口统计群体的公平性得到改善,包括性别(急性事件发生率差异3.8% vs 5.3%,减少1.5%,95% CI 0.3%-2.7%)和种族和民族(差异5.6% vs 8.9%,减少3.3%,95% CI 1.1%-5.5%)。在定性评价中,SARSA模型发现并推荐了针对特定医疗-社会相互作用的干预措施,例如糖尿病患者与住房质量差或食物不安全相关的呼吸问题。结论:与标准做法相比,sars引导的护理管理显示出减少急性护理使用的潜力。该方法展示了强化学习如何在患者同时面临临床和社会因素的情况下改善复杂的决策,同时保持人口亚组的安全性和公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reinforcement Learning to Prevent Acute Care Events Among Medicaid Populations: Mixed Methods Study.

Background: Multidisciplinary care management teams must rapidly prioritize interventions for patients with complex medical and social needs. Current approaches rely on individual training, judgment, and experience, missing opportunities to learn from longitudinal trajectories and prevent adverse outcomes through recommender systems.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate whether a reinforcement learning approach could outperform standard care management practices in recommending optimal interventions for patients with complex needs.

Methods: Using data from 3175 Medicaid beneficiaries in care management programs across 2 states from 2023 to 2024, we compared alternative approaches for recommending "next best step" interventions: the standard experience-based approach (status quo) and a state-action-reward-state-action (SARSA) reinforcement learning model. We evaluated performance using clinical impact metrics, conducted counterfactual causal inference analyses to estimate reductions in acute care events, assessed fairness across demographic subgroups, and performed qualitative chart reviews where the models differed.

Results: In counterfactual analyses, SARSA-guided care management reduced acute care events by 12 percentage points (95% CI 2.2-21.8 percentage points, a 20.7% relative reduction; P=.02) compared to the status quo approach, with a number needed to treat of 8.3 (95% CI 4.6-45.2) to prevent 1 acute event. The approach showed improved fairness across demographic groups, including gender (3.8% vs 5.3% disparity in acute event rates, reduction 1.5%, 95% CI 0.3%-2.7%) and race and ethnicity (5.6% vs 8.9% disparity, reduction 3.3%, 95% CI 1.1%-5.5%). In qualitative reviews, the SARSA model detected and recommended interventions for specific medical-social interactions, such as respiratory issues associated with poor housing quality or food insecurity in individuals with diabetes.

Conclusions: SARSA-guided care management shows potential to reduce acute care use compared to standard practice. The approach demonstrates how reinforcement learning can improve complex decision-making in situations where patients face concurrent clinical and social factors while maintaining safety and fairness across demographic subgroups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信