Summary and Discussion of Methods and Results of the Adult Day Health Care Evaluation Study

This article summarizes the study results and presents an evaluative summary of the implementation of study methods designed to provide guidance in the degree of confidence with which the results may be accepted and generalized to other situations. Patients who were offered VA-ADHC services in the f...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Medical care 1993-09, Vol.31 (9), p.SS94-SS103
Main Authors: Hedrick, Susan C., Rothman, Margaret L., Chapko, Michael, Ehreth, Jenifer, Diehr, Paula, Inui, Thomas S., Connis, Richard T., Grover, Prakash L., Kelly, James R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Activities of Daily Living
Adult care services
Aged
Caregivers
Contract Services - utilization
Cost control
Cost savings
Day Care, Medical - economics
Day Care, Medical - standards
Day Care, Medical - utilization
Health Care Costs
Health outcomes
Health Services Research - methods
Health status
Home care services
Hospitals, Veterans
Humans
Nursing homes
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Program Evaluation - methods
Total costs
United States
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This article summarizes the study results and presents an evaluative summary of the implementation of study methods designed to provide guidance in the degree of confidence with which the results may be accepted and generalized to other situations. Patients who were offered VA-ADHC services in the first phase of this study had significantly higher VA health care costs on average than patients assigned to customary care, with no apparent incremental health benefit to themselves or their care givers. One can have a high level of confidence in these results. The ADHC clinical services were implemented as planned, the randomized controlled trial was implemented successfully, and such threats to validity as insufficient numbers of patients and differential attrition were not present. Certain subgroups of patients assigned to VA-ADHC had VA costs of care that were not significantly higher than those assigned to customary care, although these results must be interpreted with caution. The findings of the second phase of the study evaluating contract ADHC provide no support for choosing to provide either contract ADHC or VA-ADHC over the other. The nonrandomized design and smaller sample size suggest that inferences from the contract ADHC evaluation should be drawn with more caution than those from the VA-ADHC evaluation.
ISSN:0025-7079