Background The harmful relationship of sedentary behavior to health may reflect an exchange of sedentary activity for moderate-vigorous activity or sedentary behavior may be a separate risk factor. We examined whether time spent in sedentary behavior is related to disability in activities of daily living (ADL), independent of time spent in moderate-vigorous activity in older adults. Methods The nationally representative 2003–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examinations Surveys (NHANES) included 2286 adults aged 60 years and older with accelerometer-assessed physical activity. The association between ADL task disability and the daily percentage of sedentary time was evaluated by multiple logistic regression. Results This sample spent almost 9 hours/day being sedentary during waking hours and 3.6% reported ADL disability. The odds of ADL disability were 46% greater (odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval: 1.07, 1.98) for each daily hour spent in sedentary behavior, adjusted for moderate-vigorous activity, socioeconomic, and health factors. Conclusion These U.S. national data show a strong relationship between greater time spent in sedentary behavior and the presence of ADL disability, independent of time spent in moderate or vigorous activity. These findings support programs encouraging older adults to decrease sedentary behavior regardless of their engagement in moderate or vigorous activity.
Background-The harmful relationship of sedentary behavior to health may reflect an exchange of sedentary activity for moderate-vigorous activity or sedentary behavior may be a separate risk factor. We examined whether time spent in sedentary behavior is related to disability in activities of daily living (ADL), independent of time spent in moderate-vigorous activity in older adults.
Objective To evaluate the association between hospital penalization in the US Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) and subsequent changes in clinical outcomes. Design Regression discontinuity design applied to a retrospective cohort from inpatient Medicare claims. Setting 3238 acute care hospitals in the United States. Participants Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged from acute care hospitals between 23 July 2014 and 30 November 2016 and eligible for at least one targeted hospital acquired condition (n=15 470 334). Intervention Hospital receipt of a penalty in the first year of the HACRP. Main outcome measures Episode level count of targeted hospital acquired conditions per 1000 episodes, 30 day readmissions, and 30 day mortality. Results Of 724 hospitals penalized under the HACRP in fiscal year 2015, 708 were represented in the study. Mean counts of hospital acquired conditions were 2.72 per 1000 episodes for penalized hospitals and 2.06 per 1000 episodes for non-penalized hospitals; 30 day readmissions were 14.4% and 14.0%, respectively, and 30 day mortality was 9.0% for both hospital groups. Penalized hospitals were more likely to be large, teaching institutions, and have a greater share of patients with low socioeconomic status than non-penalized hospitals. HACRP penalties were associated with a non-significant change of −0.16 hospital acquired conditions per 1000 episodes (95% confidence interval −0.53 to 0.20), −0.36 percentage points in 30 day readmission (−1.06 to 0.33), and −0.04 percentage points in 30 day mortality (−0.59 to 0.52). No clear patterns of clinical improvement were observed across hospital characteristics. Conclusions Penalization was not associated with significant changes in rates of hospital acquired conditions, 30 day readmission, or 30 day mortality, and does not appear to drive meaningful clinical improvements. By disproportionately penalizing hospitals caring for more disadvantaged patients, the HACRP could exacerbate inequities in care.
BackgroundIntroduced in 2004, the United Kingdom’s (UK) Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) is the world’s largest primary-care pay-for-performance programme. Given some evidence of the benefits and the substantial costs associated with the QOF, it remains unclear whether the programme is cost-effective. Therefore, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of continuing versus stopping the QOF.MethodsWe developed a lifetime simulation model to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for a UK population cohort aged 40–74 years (n = 27,070,862) exposed to the QOF and for a counterfactual scenario without exposure. Based on a previous retrospective cross-country analysis using data from 1994 to 2010, we assumed the benefits of the QOF to be a change in age-adjusted mortality of −3.68 per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval –8.16 to 0.80). We used cost-effectiveness thresholds of £30,000/QALY, £20,000/QALY and £13,000/QALY to determine the optimal strategy in base-case and sensitivity analyses.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, continuing the QOF increased population-level QALYs and health-care costs yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £49,362/QALY. The ICER remained >£30,000/QALY in scenarios with and without non-fatal outcomes or increased drug costs, and under differing assumptions about the duration of QOF benefit following its hypothetical discontinuation. The ICER for continuing the programme fell below £30,000/QALY when QOF incentive payments were 36% lower (while preserving QOF mortality benefits), and in scenarios where the QOF resulted in substantial reductions in health-care spending or non-fatal cardiovascular disease events. Continuing the QOF was cost-effective in 18%, 3% and 0% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis iterations using thresholds of £30,000/QALY, £20,000/QALY and £13,000/QALY, respectively.ConclusionsCompared to stopping the QOF and returning all associated incentive payments to the National Health Service, continuing the QOF is not cost-effective. To improve population health efficiently, the UK should redesign the QOF or pursue alternative interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1126-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.