IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v22y1986i8p813-819.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of a decision model for triaging hypertensive patients to alternate health education interventions

Author

Listed:
  • Hatcher, Myron E.
  • Green, Lawrence W.
  • Levine, David M.
  • Flagle, Charles E.

Abstract

The ability to assign patients to the most appropriate program of intervention would improve patient outcomes and reduce health care costs. This paper evaluates specific potentials of triaging patients into various combinations of health education treatments. Blood pressure improvement among hypertensive patients was measured and the associated treatment cost and savings were compared. Triaging rules were formed empirically from the relationship between patient characteristics selected before the study was conducted and their achieved blood pressure control within each combination of interventions. Patients randomly assigned to seven combinations of three interventions were studied in contrast to patients in a randomized control group. A combination of all three interventions was the most effective program for the undifferentiated (random) patient population, achieving a 49% increase over 18 months in patients with blood pressure under control. By triaging, 51-91% increases in patients with controlled blood pressure were achieved. Educational history of the patients which is a fairly reliable measure was the most efficient triaging variable, showing a 91% increase in patients with blood pressure under control and a relative cost saving of about 400%.

Suggested Citation

  • Hatcher, Myron E. & Green, Lawrence W. & Levine, David M. & Flagle, Charles E., 1986. "Validation of a decision model for triaging hypertensive patients to alternate health education interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 22(8), pages 813-819, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:22:y:1986:i:8:p:813-819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(86)90235-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:22:y:1986:i:8:p:813-819. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.