Effectiveness Of Case Management Intervention Research Articles

Case management interventions in chronic disease reduce anxiety and depressive symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is no systematic insight into the effect of case management on common complications of chronic diseases, including depressive symptoms and symptoms of anxiety. This is a significant knowledge gap, given that people with a chronic disease such as Parkinson Disease or Alzheimer's Disease have identified care coordination as one of their highest priorities. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the putative beneficial effects of case management would vary by crucial patient characteristics, such as their age, gender, or disease characteristics. Such insights would shift from "one size fits all" healthcare resource allocation to personalized medicine. We systematically examined the effectiveness of case management interventions on two common complications associated PD and other chronic health conditions: Depressive symptoms and symptoms of anxiety. We identified studies published until November 2022 from PubMed and Embase databases using predefined inclusion criteria. For each study, data were extracted independently by two researchers. First, descriptive and qualitative analyses of all included studies were performed, followed by random-effects meta-analyses to assess the impact of case management interventions on anxiety and depressive symptoms. Second, meta-regression was performed to analyze potential modifying effects of demographic characteristics, disease characteristics and case management components. 23 randomized controlled trials and four non-randomized studies reported data on the effect of case management on symptoms of anxiety (8 studies) or depressive symptoms (26 studies). Across meta-analyses, we observed a statistically significant effect of case management on reducing symptoms of anxiety (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD] = - 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.69, -0.32) and depressive symptoms (SMD = - 0.48; CI: -0.71, -0.25). We found large heterogeneity in effect estimates across studies, but this was not explained by patient population or intervention characteristics. Among people with chronic health conditions, case management has beneficial effects on symptoms of depressive symptoms and symptoms of anxiety. Currently, research on case management interventions are rare. Future studies should assess the utility of case management for potentially preventative and common complications, focusing on the optimal content, frequency, and intensity of case management.

The effectiveness of case management interventions for the homeless, vulnerably housed and persons with lived experience: A systematic review.

Individuals who are homeless or vulnerably housed are at an increased risk for mental illness, other morbidities and premature death. Standard case management interventions as well as more intensive models with practitioner support, such as assertive community treatment, critical time interventions, and intensive case management, may improve healthcare navigation and outcomes. However, the definitions of these models as well as the fidelity and adaptations in real world interventions are highly variable. We conducted a systematic review to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of case management interventions on health and social outcomes for homeless populations. We searched Medline, Embase and 7 other electronic databases for trials on case management or care coordination, from the inception of these databases to July 2019. We sought outcomes on housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalization, income and employment, and cost-effectiveness. We calculated pooled random effects estimates and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our search identified 13,811 citations; and 56 primary studies met our full inclusion criteria. Standard case management had both limited and short-term effects on substance use and housing outcomes and showed potential to increase hostility and depression. Intensive case management substantially reduced the number of days spent homeless (SMD -0.22 95% CI -0.40 to -0.03), as well as substance and alcohol use. Critical time interventions and assertive community treatment were found to have a protective effect in terms of rehospitalizations and a promising effect on housing stability. Assertive community treatment was found to be cost-effective compared to standard case management. Case management approaches were found to improve some if not all of the health and social outcomes that were examined in this study. The important factors were likely delivery intensity, the number and type of caseloads, hospital versus community programs and varying levels of participant needs. More research is needed to fully understand how to continue to obtain the increased benefits inherent in intensive case management, even in community settings where feasibility considerations lead to larger caseloads and less-intensive follow-up.

Determinants of adherence and effects on health-related quality of life after myocardial infarction: a prospective cohort study

BackgroundAdherence to recommendations and medication is deemed to be important for effectiveness of case management interventions. Thus, reasons for non-adherence and effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) should be fully understood. The objective of this research was to identify determinants of non-adherence to medication and recommendations, and to test whether increased adherence improved HRQoL in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) in a case management intervention.MethodsData were obtained from the intervention group of the KORINNA study, a randomized controlled trail of a nurse-led case management intervention with targeted recommendations in the elderly after MI in Germany. Reasons for non-adherence were described. Logistic mixed effects models and OLS (ordinary least squares) were used to analyze the effect of recommendations on the probability of adherence and the association between adherence and HRQoL.ResultsOne hundred and twenty-seven patients with 965 contacts were included. Frequent reasons for non-adherence to medication and recommendations were “forgotten” (22%; 11%), “reluctant” (18%; 18%), “side effects” (38%; 7%), “the problem disappeared” (6%; 13%), and “barriers” (0%; 13%). The probability of adherence was lowest for disease and self-management (38%) and highest for visits to the doctor (61%). Only if patients diverging from prescribed medication because of side effects were also considered as adherent, 3-year medication adherence was associated with a significant gain of 0.34 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).ConclusionsMost important determinants of non-adherence to medication were side effects, and to recommendations reluctance. Recommended improvements in disease and self-management were least likely adhered. Medication adherence was associated with HRQoL.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN02893746, retrospectively registered, date assigned 27/03/2009.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of complex health care interventions: the example of case management

Introduction: The aim is to present the evaluation of effectiveness of case management interventions, designed from the bottom-up, which have been implemented in Belgium since 2010 to support dependent elderly people at home. This type of intervention is an integrated care process which combines prevention, evaluation, custom designed multidisciplinary care plan, coordination of services and follow-up. Mixed methods are necessary for covering the indispensable steps of the analysis of effectiveness which includes the specific description of the interventions, the identification of the target populations, the building of a control group, the tracking of pertinent indicators, and the choice of a quantitative approach bearing in mind the implementation process of the interventions. Methods: The quantitative analysis of effectiveness has been guided by the results of the implementation analysis, a qualitative approach which provides the description of essential components of the interventions. Two quantitative databases are available for the beneficiaries and the control group (not benefiting from interventions and recruited by home care organisations, thus reflecting “usual care”): (1) a prospective data collection through a validated comprehensive geriatric instrument (the interRAI Home Care instrument) including clinical variables and data related to the informal caregivers, and (2) the administrative database of the reimbursed health care consumption (routinely recorded by the health care insurance). The different types of dependency are defined through a clustering analysis grouping beneficiaries according to functional and cognitive limitations. Thereafter, each P3 beneficiary is matched by using a propensity score method with one individual of the control group having similar health characteristics and similar levels of presence of informal caregiver (without, non-cohabitant, cohabitant). Finally, the different variables for assessing effectiveness are tested between beneficiaries and the control group. Results: Case management interventions are grouped according to three criteria: (1) the feedback to a general practitioner, (2) the psychological support, and (3) the intensity of the intervention. Beneficiaries are divided into five dependency types (low limitations; important IADL limitations; important ADL and IADL limitations; significant cognitive and functional deficiencies; and people cumulating significant cognitive, functional and behavioural problems). The results are presented for each of the above subgroups in the form of a “dashboard” including the different essential indicators for the evaluation of the impact of the intervention: indicators of health care consumption (i.e. nursing care at home, visits to a medical specialist), indicators identifying the stress on the health system (i.e. unexpected hospitalisation, visits to emergency service) and clinical outcomes (i.e. functional, cognitive, and depressive status, quality of life, informal caregiver’s perceived burden). Discussion: The analysis of the data collected through the questionnaires filled out by both the care recipients and their main informal caregivers linked to the administrative database of health care consumption provides a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of a complex intervention. Both clinical and use of resources outcomes are analyzed for the dyads of care recipients/informal caregivers and allow for comprehensively and accurately describing the consequences of case management interventions according to various types of situations at home.

Key factors of case management interventions for frequent users of healthcare services: a thematic analysis review

ObjectiveThe aim of this paper was to identify the key factors of case management (CM) interventions among frequent users of healthcare services found in empirical studies of effectiveness.DesignThematic analysis review...

The effectiveness of case management interventions for patients suffering from substance use disorders

IntroductionSubstance use disorder (SUD) is a growing health problem which needs a very complex range of care due to the chronic and relapsing nature of the disorder and the multiple psychosocial problems involved. There are often difficulties in current outpatient programs to deliver and coordinate ongoing care and access to different health care providers. To improve treatment outcomes various case management (CM) models have been developed, at first in other psychiatric domains but also for patients with SUD.AimsThe aim was to assess the effectiveness of CM for patients with SUD using existing studies.MethodsSystematic review of CM interventions for patients with SUD by analyzing randomized controlled studies on this matter found on the electronic database PubMed published between 1996 and 2016.Results and conclusionsMost of the analyzed studies showed improvement on the chosen outcome measures, although, these varied in the different studies. Mainly the treatment adherence improved, but substance use only reduced in a third of the studies. Overall functioning improved in about half of the studies. Further, studies are necessary to determine inclusion criteria for CM treatment for patients suffering from SUD in order to orientate patients most likely to benefit from this approach to the specific CM programs. There are still only few studies on this intervention and SUD. Further, studies are needed to examine the effect of treatment intensity of the CM intervention. Also longitudinal studies are needed to ensure the effectiveness of these treatments.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Effectiveness of case management interventions for frequent users of healthcare services: a scoping review.

ObjectiveFrequent users of healthcare services are a vulnerable population, often socioeconomically disadvantaged, who can present multiple chronic conditions as well as mental health problems. Case management (CM) is the most frequently performed intervention to reduce healthcare use and cost. This study aimed to examine the evidence of the effectiveness of CM interventions for frequent users of healthcare services.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesAn electronic literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE, Scopus and CINAHL databases covering January 2004 to December 2015. A specific search strategy was developed for each database using keywords ‘case management’ and ‘frequent use’.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesTo be included in the review, studies had to report effects of a CM intervention on healthcare use and cost or patient outcomes. Eligible designs included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials and controlled and non-controlled before–after studies. Studies limited to specific groups of patients or targeting a single disease were excluded. Three reviewers screened abstracts, screened each full-text article and extracted data, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus.ResultsThe final review included 11 articles evaluating the effectiveness of CM interventions among frequent users of healthcare services. Two non-randomised controlled studies and 4 before–after studies reported positives outcomes on healthcare use or cost. Two randomised controlled trials, 2 before–after studies and 1 non-randomised controlled study presented mitigated results. Patient outcomes such as drug and alcohol use, health locus of control, patient satisfaction and psychological functioning were evaluated in 3 studies, but no change was reported.ConclusionsMany studies suggest that CM could reduce emergency department visits and hospitalisations as well as cost. However, pragmatic randomised controlled trials of adequate power that recruit the most frequent users of healthcare services are still needed to clearly confirm its effectiveness.

Case Management Interventions for HIV-Infected Individuals

Engagement of HIV-positive persons into care and achieving optimal antiretroviral treatment outcomes is a fundamental HIV prevention strategy. Case management model was recommended as a beneficial model of care for patients with a new HIV diagnosis, focusing on individuals with unmet needs, and linking them with the coordinated health and social services to achieve desired outcomes. HIV case management is population-driven and programs are designed to respond to the unique needs of the client population they serve, such as substance users, homeless, youth, and prison inmates. This view found 28 studies addressing effectiveness and impacts of case management intervention for people living with or at risk of HIV/AIDS. Effectiveness of case management intervention was categorized as follows: decreased mortality and improve health outcomes, linkage to and retention in care, decreased unmet needs, and reducing risky behaviors.

Client and site characteristics as barriers to service use by homeless persons with serious mental illness.

Clients entering the Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Supports (ACCESS) program for homeless mentally ill persons in 18 U.S. communities identified barriers to service use. The most frequent barrier was not knowing where to go for a service (encountered by 32.4 percent of the 1,828 clients). It was followed by not being able to afford it (29.5 percent); experiencing too much confusion, hassle, or waiting to obtain it (27.1 percent); and having been previously denied the service (16.5 percent). Differences in the program site (that is, the 18 communities) explained two to three times more of the variance in encountering barriers use than did individual client characteristics.