Skip to main content
Log in

DISMEVAL: Europees onderzoek naar ‘best practices’ op het gebied van disease management evaluatie

  • Published:
Tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen Aims and scope

Hoewel in meerdere landen aanzienlijke investeringen zijn gedaan in de implementatie van disease management programma’s voor chronische aandoeningen, ontbreekt het veelal nog aan een duidelijk bewijs van effectiviteit en doelmatigheid. Een deel van het probleem is het gebrek aan universeel geaccepteerde evaluatiemethoden, die zowel wetenschappelijk robuust als operationeel uitvoerbaar zijn. Om aanbevelingen te kunnen doen voor ‘best practices’ op het gebied van disease management evaluatie in Europa, is in 2009 een KP7-gesubsidieerd onderzoek gestart, getiteld ‘Developing and Validating Disease Management Evaluation Methods in European Health Care Systems (DISMEVAL)’. Doel van DISMEVAL is om disease management evaluatiemethoden te ontwikkelen en te valideren op basis van data van bestaande programma’s in zes Europese landen, te weten Denemarken, Duitsland, Frankrijk, Nederland, Oostenrijk en Spanje. In Nederland zullen twee evaluatiedesigns (meta-analyse en meta-regressie) worden getest op basis van data van twintig regionale zorggroepen, welke werken met een eerstelijns keten-DBC voor diabetes mellitus type 2. DISMEVAL zal worden afgerond in 2011 en heeft, door de bundeling van internationale ervaringen en inzichten, de potentie om een significante bijdrage te leveren aan de wijze waarop complexe interventies geëvalueerd dienen te worden, gegeven de mogelijkheden die de dagelijkse context biedt.

Abstract

DISMEVAL: European study of ‘best practices’ in the area of disease management evaluation

Although in several countries, considerable investments have been made in the implementation of disease management programs for chronic conditions, evidence on effectiveness and efficiency remain scarce. Part of the problem is the lack of universally accepted evaluation methods, which are both scientifically rigorous and operationally feasible. In order to formulate recommendations for ‘best practices’ in the area of disease management evaluation in Europe, a FP7-funded research was initiated in 2009, entitled ‘Developing and Validating Disease Management Evaluation Methods in European Health Care Systems (DISMEVAL)’. The aim of DISMEVAL is to test and validate disease management evaluation methods on data from existing programs in six European countries, i.e. Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. In the Netherlands, two evaluation designs (meta-analysis and meta-regression) will be tested on the basis of data from twenty regional care groups, which are working with a primary care chain DBC for diabetes mellitus type II. DISMEVAL will be completed in 2011. Through the bundling of international experiences and insights, the study has the potential to make a significant contribution to the manner in which complex interventions are evaluated, given the possibilities offered by the day-to-day context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Literatuur

  1. Steuten L. Inzet longverpleegkundige zorgt voor forse daling ziekenhuisopnames. Ned Tijdschr Evidence Based Practice 2005;3:14–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nolte E, Knai C, McKee M. Managing Chronic Conditions. Experience in Eight Countries. Brussels: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Linden A, Adams JL, Roberts N. Evaluation methods in disease management: determining program effectiveness. Disease Management Association of America (White Paper), 2003.

  4. Vrijhoef HJM, Steuten LMG. Innovatieve zorgconcepten op een rij: disease management (1). Tijdschr Gezondheidswet 2005;83:305–306.

    Google Scholar 

  5. World Health Organization. 2008–2013 Action Plan for the Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Geneva: WHO, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport. Programmatische aanpak van chronische ziekten. Kamerstuk, 13 Juni 2008.

  7. Congressional Budget Office. An Analysis of the Literature on Disease Management Programs. Washington, DC: United States Congress, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Coleman K, Austin BT, Brach C, Wagner EH. Evidence on the chronic care model in the new millennium. Health Affairs 2009;28:75–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mattke S, Seid M, Ma S. Evidence for the effect of disease management: is $1 billion a year a good investment? Am J Managed Care 2007;13:670–676.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Scott I. What are the most effective strategies for improving quality and safety of health care? Rev Int Med J 2009;39:389–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Geyman JP. Disease management: panacea, another false hope, or something in between? Ann Family Med 2007;5:257–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsai AC, Morton SC, Mangione CM, Keeler EM. A meta-analysis of interventions to improve care for chronic illnesses. Am J Managed Care 2005;11:478–488.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Linden A, Adams JL, Roberts N. Evaluating disease management program effectiveness: an introduction to the regression discontinuity design. J Evaluation Clin Pract 2006;12:124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Linden A, Adams JL, Roberts N. Using propensity scores to construct comparable control groups for disease management program evaluation. Dis Manag Health Outcomes 2005;13:107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Linden A, Adams JL. Improving participant selection in disease management programs: insights gained from propensity score stratification. J Evaluation Clin Pract 2008;14:914–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Linden A, Adams J, Roberts N. Evaluating disease management program effectiveness: an introduction to time series analysis. Dis Management 2003;6:243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Elissen AMJ, Spreeuwenberg C, Duimel-Peeters IGP, Vrijhoef HJM. Chronic care in the Netherlands: from policy to patient satisfaction. Conference contribution, Working Conference Health Services Research in Europe. The Hague, 8–9 April 2010. www.surfgroepen.nl/sites/hsr-europe/SiteCollectionDocuments/Posters/40_Arianne.Elissen.pdf

  18. Groenewegen PP, de Jong JD. Dutch health insurance reform: the new role of collectives. Eurohealth, 2007;13:10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Struijs JN, Til JT van, Baan CA. Experimenteren met de ketendbc diabetes: de eerste zichtbare effecten. Bilthoven: RIVM, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rooijen A van, Meersbergen D van. BIG business. Wijziging in Wet BIG maakt taakherschikking mogelijk. Med Contact 2008;63:1046–1049.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Huisman R, Klazinga NS, Scholte op Reimer WJM et al. Beroerte, beroering, borging. Resultaten van de Edisse-studie van drie regionale experimenten met stroke service (deel I en deel II). Den Haag: ZonMw, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Steuten LMG, Vrijhoef HJM, Landewé-Cleuren S et al. disease management programme for patients with diabetes mellitus is associated with improved quality of care within existing budgets. Diabetic Med 2007;24:1112–1120.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. ZonMw. Programma Disease Management Chronische Ziekten. Evaluatie praktijkprojecten door iBMG. Den Haag: ZonMw, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wagner EH. Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Effective Clin Practice 1998;1:2–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elissen, A., Duimel-Peeters, I., Spreeuwenberg, C. et al. DISMEVAL: Europees onderzoek naar ‘best practices’ op het gebied van disease management evaluatie. Tijds. gezondheids.wetenschappen 89, 180–184 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-011-0059-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-011-0059-4

Trefwoorden:

Keywords:

Navigation