Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Background Studies of patients with multiple chronic conditions using claims data are often missing important determinants of treatments and outcomes, such as function status and disease severity. We sought to identify and evaluate a class of function-related indicators (FRIs) from administrative claims data. Population The study cohort comprised US Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with Parts A and B fee-for-service and Part D coverage, with a hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction during 2007. Methods Measures during the year before admission included the FRIs, demographics, conventional comorbidity measures, and prior hospitalization. Outcomes were receipt of cardiac catheterization during the index hospitalization and 12-month mortality. Model development used a random sample (n=72,056) with an equal sample for validation. Results In addition to prior cardiovascular conditions (85%), 40% had ≥1 comorbid condition, 30% were hospitalized in the prior 6 months, and 65% had ≥1 FRI [eg, delirium/dementia (22.7%), depression (16.7%), mobility limitation (16.1%), and chronic skin ulcers (12.6%)]. Including the FRIs improved mortality and cardiac catheterization prediction models (C-statistics 0.71 and 0.77, respectively). Patients with more cardiovascular conditions received less cardiac catheterization [minimally adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.83], as did patients with more comorbidities (minimally adjusted OR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.69-0.71), but this was attenuated by adjusting for functional status (fully adjusted OR for cardiovascular conditions 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.96 and for comorbid conditions 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.95). Conclusions Claims data studies that include indicators of potentially diminished patient functional status better capture heterogeneity of patients with multiple chronic conditions.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 55/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 4 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 32 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 55 of 100. Total 55 of 100.32 of the 58 points we could judge = 55 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Medical care)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 4 / 4 72,056 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24561763)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 32 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100.
Total 55 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Chrischilles, E., Schneider, K., Wilwert, J., Lessman, G., O'Donnell, B., Gryzlak, B., et al. (2014). Beyond comorbidity: expanding the definition and measurement of complexity among older adults using administrative claims data. Medical care. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0000000000000026

Vancouver

Chrischilles E, Schneider K, Wilwert J, Lessman G, O'Donnell B, Gryzlak B, et al. Beyond comorbidity: expanding the definition and measurement of complexity among older adults using administrative claims data. Medical care. 2014. doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000000026. PMID: 24561763.

BibTeX

@article{chrischilles2014-24561763,
  author  = {Chrischilles, E. and Schneider, K. and Wilwert, J. and Lessman, G. and O'Donnell, B. and Gryzlak, B. and Wright, K. and Wallace, R.},
  title   = {{Beyond comorbidity: expanding the definition and measurement of complexity among older adults using administrative claims data}},
  journal = {Medical care},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.1097/mlr.0000000000000026},
  pmid    = {24561763},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0000000000000026}
}

Related studies in Digital health tools

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →