Selection of the method to appraise and compare health systems using risk stratification: the ASSEHS approach
- 133 Downloads
To face the challenge of active and healthy ageing, European Health Systems and services should move towards proactive, anticipatory and integrated care. The comparison of methods to combine results across studies and to determine an overall effect was undertaken by the EU project ASSEHS (Activation of Stratification Strategies and Results of the interventions on frail patients of Healthcare Services, EU project (No. 2013 12 04). The questions raised in ASSEHS are broad and involve a complex body of literature. Thus, systematic reviews are not appropriate. The most appropriate method appears to be scoping studies. In this paper, an updated method of scoping studies has been used to determine the questions needed to appraise the health systems and services for frailty in the ageing population. Three objectives were set (i) to detect a relevant number of risk stratification tools for frailty and identify the best-in-class, (ii) to understand the feasibility of introducing stratification tools and identify the difficulties of the process and (iii) to find evidence on the impact of risk stratification in Health Services. This novel approach may provide greater clarity about scoping study methodology and help enhance the methodological rigor with which authors undertake and report scoping studies.
KeywordsScoping studies ASSEHS EIPonAHA Health system Frailty
Activation of Stratification Strategies and Results of the interventions on frail patients of Healthcare Services
European innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing
Patient, problem or population, intervention, comparison, control or comparator, outcome
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Randomised controlled trial
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Statement of human and animal rights
This article does not contains any studies with human and participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study informed consent is not required.
- 6.Wennberg D, Siegel M, Darin B et al (2006) Combined predictive model: final report and technical documentation. Health Dialog/King’s Fund/New York University, London. http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/research/projects
- 10.Wu RR, Orlando LA, Himmel TL et al (2013) Patient and primary care provider experience using a family health history collection, risk stratification, and clinical decision support tool: a type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness trial. BMC Fam Pract 14:111PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.NHS National Services Scotland (2011) Scottish Patients at Risk of Readmission (SPARRA). Version 3. Available at http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Healthand-Social-Community-Care/SPARRA/SPARRA_Version_3_October 2011.pdf. 2011
- 14.Chenore T, Pereira Gray DJ, Forrer J et al (2013) Emergency hospital admissions for the elderly: insights from the Devon predictive model. J Public Health 35:616–623Google Scholar
- 15.Health Dialog UK (2008) Wales predictive model final report and technical documentation. Prepared for NHS Wales, Informing Healthcare. http://www.nliah.com/portal/microsites/Uploads/Resources/k5cma8PPy.pdf. Accessed Nov 2014
- 30.Brien S, Gheihman G, Tse YK et al (2014) A scoping review of appropriateness of care research activity in Canada from a health system-level perspective. Health Policy 9:48–61Google Scholar
- 32.Bigdeli M, Javadi D, Hoebert J et al (2013) Health policy and systems research in access to medicines: a prioritized agenda for low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst 11:37Google Scholar
- 34.Dennis SM, Harris M, Lloyd J et al (2013) Do people with existing chronic conditions benefit from telephone coaching? A rapid review. Aust Health Rev 37:381–388Google Scholar
- 36.Ehrlich K, Freeman G, Richards S et al (2002) How to do a scoping exercise: continuity of care. Res Pol Plan 20:25–29Google Scholar