MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2281295224 · doi:10.18553/jmcp.2016.22.4.381

Connecting Patients to Prescription Assistance Programs: Effects on Emergency Department and Hospital Utilization

2016· article· en· W2281295224 sur OpenAlexafffund
Mason Burley, Kenn B. Daratha, Katherine R. Tuttle, John R. White, Michael Wilson, Kelly Armstrong, Sterling McPherson, Samuel L. Selinger

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMedication Adherence and Compliance
Établissements canadiensProvidence Health Care
Organismes subventionnairesProvidence Health CareUniversity of WashingtonWashington State University
Mots-clésMedicineEmergency departmentMedical prescriptionMedical emergencyHealth careEmergency medicineFamily medicineMedical recordNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Manufacturer prescription assistance programs (PAPs) have been developed to provide medications at little or no cost to eligible patients. There are over 200 PAPs available from pharmaceutical companies, and each may have different eligibility requirements and assistance guidelines. A formalized community-based patient prescription coordinator can help patients navigate these programs by reviewing an applicant's financial information and medication requirements to identify which PAPs are most appropriate. Little is known, however, about whether providing such guidance is associated with a reduction in acute care utilization. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in emergency department and hospital utilization among patients who received care coordination and financial assistance with prescribed medications. METHODS: This single-cohort interrupted time-series study included participants in eastern Washington state who enrolled in the Spokane Prescription Assistance Network (SPAN) program between March 1, 2009, and August 31, 2012. Referrals to the SPAN patient prescription coordinator were made by a social service agency or medical provider for patients who may have difficulty paying for prescribed medications. Initial patient contact occurred while the patient was still being treated in a clinic or hospital or through a direct visit to the coordinator's community-based office. Participants were contacted 6 months after the initial appointment and then annually thereafter to review current medications and health status. A review of electronic health records provided information on hospitalizations and emergency department visits in the 12 months before and after program entry. RESULTS: Among SPAN participants (n = 310), emergency department and hospital encounters declined from 0.38 per participant in the year before enrollment to 0.20 encounters in the year following program entry. A repeated-measures mixed-effects model indicated SPAN participation was associated with a 51% decline in the rate of emergency department and hospital utilization (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.31-0.77; P = 0.002). Observed effects differed by prescription class. Factor interactions revealed significant reductions in utilization for participants with prescribed pulmonary medications (IRR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.37-0.92; P = 0.019). Assistance with mental health (psychotropic) medications was associated with increased incidence of utilization (IRR = 2.07; 95% CI = 1.32-3.24; P = 0.001). At the time of SPAN enrollment, 60% of participants had prescriptions for psychotropic medications. CONCLUSIONS: A formalized patient prescription coordinator can help patients access prescribed medications at low cost and remain compliant with treatment plans. In a study of a coordination pilot program, reductions in hospital admissions and emergency department visits were observed following program participation. DISCLOSURES: This study was not supported by any outside funding. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Study design was created by Burley, McPherson, and Daratha. Burley Daratha, Selinger, and Armstrong collected the data, with interpretation performed by Burley, Daratha, and Tuttle, assisted by McPherson. The manuscript was written by Burley, Daratha, and Selinger, with assistance from White, and revised by Burley, White, and Selinger, with assistance from Daratha and Tuttle.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,847
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,345

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,332
Écart entre enseignants0,297 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Managed Care & Specialty PharmacyMême sujetMedication Adherence and ComplianceTravaux en français237 207