Abstract
Disease management (DM) program evaluations are somewhat limited in scope because of typically small sample sizes comprising important subsets of the treated population. Identifying subsets of the data that have differing results from the aggregate of the whole program can lend insight into where, when, and how the program achieves its results. Additionally, there is a very limited set of classical tools available for the smaller sample sizes typically encountered in DM. Without readily available standard error and confidence interval (CI) calculations, the analyst may be fooled by specious details.
A method called the ‘bootstrap’ is introduced as a suitable technique for allowing DM program evaluators to use a broader array of quantities of interest and to extend inferences to the population based on results achieved in the program. The bootstrap uses the power of modern computers to generate many random samples from a given data set, allowing the use of repeated samples’ statistic (e.g. mean, proportion, and median). Using a congestive heart failure (CHF) program as an example, the bootstrap technique is used to extend a DM program evaluation beyond questions addressed using classical statistical inference: (i) how much of a median cost decrease can be expected as a result of the program?; (ii) did the program impact the highest and lowest costing members equally; and (iii) how much of a decrease in the proportion of patients experiencing a hospitalization can be expected as a result of the program?
The potential advantages of the bootstrap technique in DM program evaluation were clearly illustrated using this small CHF program example. A more robust understanding of program impact is possible when more tools and methods are available to the evaluator. This is particularly the case in DM, which is inherently biased in case-mix (e.g. strive to enroll sickest first), often has skewed distributions or outliers, and may suffer from small sample sizes.
The bootstrap technique creates distributions that allow for a more accurate method of drawing statistical inferences of a population. Moreover, since classical statistical inference techniques were designed specifically for parametric statistics (i.e. assuming a normal distribution), the bootstrap can be used for measures that have no convenient statistical formulae. Additionally, CIs can be defined around this statistic, making it a viable option for evaluating DM program effectiveness.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Healthways and the John Hopkins Consensus Conference. Consensus report: standard outcome metrics and evaluation methodology for disease management programs. Dis Manag 2003; 6(3): 121–38
Linden A, Adams J, Roberts N. An assessment of the total population approach for evaluating disease management program effectiveness. Dis Manag 2003; 6(2): 93–102
Linden A, Adams J, Roberts N. Evaluating disease management program effectiveness: an introduction to time series analysis. Dis Manag 2003; 6(4): 243–55
Linden A, Adams J, Roberts N. Evaluation methods in disease management: determining program effectiveness. Position Paper for the Disease Management Association of America (DMAA). 2003 Oct
Linden A, Adams J, Roberts N. Using propensity scores to construct comparable control groups for disease management program evaluation. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2005; 13(2): 107–27
Linden A, Roberts N. Disease management interventions: what’s in the black box? Dis Manag 2004; 7(4): 275–91
Linden A, Adams J, Roberts N. Evaluating disease management program effectiveness: an introduction to survival analysis. Dis Manag 2004; 7(3): 180–90
Linden A, Adams J, Roberts N. Using an empirical method for establishing clinical outcome targets in disease management programs. Dis Manag 2004; 7(2): 93–101
Mosteller F, Tukey J. Data analysis and regression. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley, 1977
Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. JSTOR 1979; 7: 1–26
Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1993
Chernick MR. Bootstrap methods: a practitioner’s guide. New York: Wiley, 2000
Davison AC, Hinkley DV. Bootstrap methods and their applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997
Lunneborg CE. Data analysis by resampling; concepts and applications. Pacific Grove (CA): Brooks-Cole, 2000
Pearson ES. ’student’: a statistical biography of William Sealy Gosset, Edited and Augmented by R. L. Plackett with the Assistance of G. A. Barnard, Oxford: University Press, 1990
Disease Management Consortium, LLC, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: www.dismgmt.com [Accessed 2005 Jan 2]
Vogt PW. Dictionary of statistics and methodology: a non-technical guide for the social sciences. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 1999
Blank S, Seiter C, Bruce P. Resampling Stats add-in for Excel user’s guide. Arlington (VA): Resampling Stats Inc, 2003
Ludbrook J, Dudley H. Why permutation tests are superior to t and F tests in biomedical research. Am Stat 1998; 52(2): 127–32
Reichardt CS, Gollob HF. Justifying the use and increasing the power of a t test for a randomized experiment with a convenience sample. Psychol Methods 1999; 4: 117–28
Acknowledgments
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Linden, A., Adams, J.L. & Roberts, N. Evaluating Disease Management Program Effectiveness. Dis-Manage-Health-Outcomes 13, 159–167 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200513030-00002
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200513030-00002