Skip to main content

Selection of the method to appraise and compare health systems using risk stratification: the ASSEHS approach

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Abbreviations

ASSEHS:

Activation of Stratification Strategies and Results of the interventions on frail patients of Healthcare Services

EIPonAHA:

European innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing

EU:

European union

PICO:

Patient, problem or population, intervention, comparison, control or comparator, outcome

PRISMA:

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

RCT:

Randomised controlled trial

References

  1. Rechel B, Grundy E, Robine JM et al (2013) Ageing in the European Union. Lancet 381:1312–1322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bousquet J, Michel J, Standberg T et al (2014) The European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing: the European Geriatric Medicine introduces the EIP on AHA Column. Eur Geriatr Med. 5:361–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Watt G, O’Donnell C, Sridharan S (2011) Building on Julian Tudor Hart’s example of anticipatory care. Prim Health Care Res Dev 12:3–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dorfman R, Khayat Z, Sieminowski T et al (2013) Application of personalized medicine to chronic disease: a feasibility assessment. Clin Transl Med 2:16

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kansagara D, Englander H, Salanitro A et al (2011) Risk prediction models for hospital readmission: a systematic review. JAMA 306:1688–1698

    PubMed Central  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

  7. Ilinca S, Calciolari S (2015) The patterns of health care utilization by elderly Europeans: frailty and its implications for health systems. Health Serv Res 50:305–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pialoux T, Goyard J, Lesourd B (2012) Screening tools for frailty in primary health care: a systematic review. Geriatr Gerontol Int 12:189–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fox KA, Fitzgerald G, Puymirat E et al (2014) Should patients with acute coronary disease be stratified for management according to their risk? Derivation, external validation and outcomes using the updated GRACE risk score. BMJ open 4:e004425

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 14:111

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. de-Manuel-Keenoy E, David M, Mora J et al (2014) Activation of stratification strategies and results of the interventions on frail patients of healthcare services (ASSEHS) DG Sanco Project No. 2013 12 04. Eur Geriatr Med 5:342-346

    Article  Google 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

  13. Billings J, Blunt I, Steventon A et al (2012) Development of a predictive model to identify inpatients at risk of re-admission within 30 days of discharge (PARR-30). BMJ Open 2:e001667. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001667

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 35:616–623

  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

  16. Falasca P, Berardo A, Di Tommaso F (2011) Development and validation of predictive MoSaiCo (Modello Statistico Combinato) on emergency admissions: can it also identify patients at high risk of frailty? Annali dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità 47:220–228

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lemke KW, Weiner JP, Clark JM (2012) Development and validation of a model for predicting inpatient hospitalization. Med Care 50:131–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lewis G, Curry N, Bardsley M (2011) Admissions planning. Guess who. Health Serv J 121:23–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1–e34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S et al (2006) Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:35

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Davis J, Mengersen K, Bennett S et al (2014) Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. Springerplus 3:511

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Thomas J, Harden A (2008) Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 8:45

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Rothstein HR (2008) Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots. BMJ 336:1413–1415

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Slavin RE (1995) Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:9–18

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc res Meth. 8:19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK et al (2014) Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 67:1291–1294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK (2010) Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 5:69

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sarrami-Foroushani P, Travaglia J, Debono D et al (2015) Scoping meta-review: introducing a new methodology. Clin Transl Sci 8:77–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Brien SE, Lorenzetti DL, Lewis S et al (2010) Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards. Implement Sci 5:2

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 9:48–61

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bassi J, Lau F (2013) Measuring value for money: a scoping review on economic evaluation of health information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 20:792–801

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google 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 11:37

  33. Brandt B, Lutfiyya MN, King JA et al (2014) A scoping review of interprofessional collaborative practice and education using the lens of the Triple Aim. J Interprof Care 28:393–399

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google 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 37:381–388

  35. Howell D, Fitch M, Bakker D et al (2013) Core domains for a person-focused outcome measurement system in cancer (PROMS-Cancer Core) for routine care: a scoping review and Canadian Delphi Consensus. Value Health 16:76–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ehrlich K, Freeman G, Richards S et al (2002) How to do a scoping exercise: continuity of care. Res Pol Plan 20:25–29

    Google Scholar 

  37. Anderson S, Allen P, Peckham S et al (2008) Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Res Policy Syst 6:7

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 26:91–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Davis K, Drey N, Gould D (2009) What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Int J Nurs Stud 46:1386–1400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Mora.

Ethics declarations

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.

Informed consent

For this type of study informed consent is not required.

Additional information

The members of the ASSEHS Study Group are listed in Appendix.

Appendix

Appendix

The members of the ASSEHS study group are given below:

E de Manuel, M David, J Mora, L Prieto; Kronikgune, International Center for Research in Chronicity, Spain

C Domingo, J Orueta; Osakidetza, Basque Public Health Provider, Spain

E Valía, F Ródenas; Polibienestar Institute-University of Valencia, Spain

S Pauws, J op den Buijs, D De Massari, M Asim; Philips Electronics Nederland B.V. acting through Philips Research

J Contel; Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain

T Martí; Fundació Ticsalut, Spain

I Baroni, M Nalin; Telbios S.p.a, Italy

F Robusto, V Lepore; Fondazione Mario Negri Sud, Italy Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire Montpellier, France

F Avolio; Regional Healthcare Agency of Puglia, Italy

A Bedbrook, R Bourret, J Bousquet; Centre hospitalier régional universitaire de Montpellier, Montpellier, France

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mora, J., De Massari, D., Pauws, S. et al. Selection of the method to appraise and compare health systems using risk stratification: the ASSEHS approach. Aging Clin Exp Res 27, 767–774 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-015-0458-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-015-0458-5

Keywords

  • Scoping studies
  • ASSEHS
  • EIPonAHA
  • Health system
  • Frailty