Search

Targeting patients for multimorbid care management interventions requires accurate and comprehensive assessment of patients' need in order to direct resources to those who need and can benefit from them the most. Multimorbid patient selection is complicated due to the lack of clear criteria--unlike disease management programs for which patients with a specific condition are identified. This ambiguity can potentially result in inequitable selection, as biases in selection may differentially affect patients from disadvantaged population groups. Patient selection could in principal be performed in three ways: physician referral, patient screening surveys, or by statistical prediction algorithms. This paper discusses equity issues related to each method. We conclude that each method may result in inequitable selection and bias, such as physicians' attentiveness or familiarity, or prediction models' reliance on prior resource use, potentially affected by socio-cultural and economic barriers. These biases should be acknowledged and dealt with. We recommend combining patient selection approaches to achieve high care sensitivity, efficiency and equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To assess the validity and reliability of the Hebrew and Arabic translations of the complete and shortened versions of the Care Transition Measure (CTM)—a measure of patients experience of the transition between hospital and community care. Design Translation of questionnaires items, evaluation of reliability, construct validity, factor structure and convergent validity. Setting An oncology center at a tertiary care facility that serves the entire population of the north part of Israel. Participants Patients receiving care at the clinics of an oncology treatment center. Main outcome measure Psychometric properties of both the 15-item (complete) and 3-item (shortened) versions of the CTM in Hebrew and Arabic. Reliability established using internal consistency with Cronbachs-α. Exploratory factor analysis conducted using Varimax rotation. Convergent validity determined with Pearson correlation and ANOVA tests. Results Three hundred and eighteen Hebrew- and Arabic-speaking oncology patients completed the questionnaire. Cronbachs-α for the questionnaire was 0.94 and 0.90 for the Hebrew and the Arabic versions, respectively. Factor analysis resulted in three factors in each of the translated versions with a cumulative variance of 73.41% and 69.2% in the Hebrew and Arabic versions, respectively. Tests of the convergent validity showed that the measure is correlated with health status and that the shortened and complete versions ratings are consistent across different patient groups. Conclusion The translated Hebrew and Arabic versions of the questionnaire are reliable and valid instruments to assess patients transitions across settings in diverse populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]