IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v9y2025i2d10.1007_s41669-024-00548-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Different Implementation Strategies for Collaborative Dementia Care Management in Terms of Patients’ Characteristics, Unmet Needs, and the Impact on Quality of Life and Costs in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Moritz Platen

    (site Rostock/Greifswald)

  • Wolfgang Hoffmann

    (site Rostock/Greifswald
    University Medicine Greifswald (UMG))

  • Bernhard Michalowsky

    (site Rostock/Greifswald)

Abstract

Objective To compare the implementation of collaborative dementia care management (cDCM) across two settings regarding patients’ characteristics, unmet needs, and the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and costs. Methods This analysis was based on data from the DCM:IMPact study, implementing cDCM in a physician network (n = 22 practices) and two day care centers (DCC) for community-dwelling persons with dementia over 6 months in Germany. Participants completed comprehensive assessments at baseline and 6 months after, soliciting sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, unmet needs, HRQoL and healthcare resource utilization. Patient characteristics and unmet needs were analyzed descriptively, and the impact of cDCM on costs and HRQoL was assessed using multivariable regression models. Results At baseline, patients from the physician network (n = 46) exhibited more pronounced neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI mean score 14 versus 10, p = 0.075), were more frequently diagnosed with dementia (76% versus 56%, p = 0.040), were less likely assigned a care level by the long-term care insurance (63% versus 91%, p ≤ 0.001) to access formal care services and had more unmet needs (12.8 versus 11.0, p ≤ 0.001), especially for social care services than DCC patients (n = 57). After 6 months, the adjusted means indicated that cDCM implemented in the physician network was more effective [EQ-5D-5L utility score; 0.061; 95% confidence interval (CI) − 0.032 to 0.153] and less costly (− 5950€; 95% CI − 8415€ to − 3485€) than cDCM implemented in DCC. Conclusions Patients and the healthcare system may benefit more when cDCM is implemented in physician networks. However, patient characteristics indicated two samples with specific conditions and various unmet needs using different ways of accessing healthcare, demonstrating the need for cDCM in both settings, which must be considered when implementing cDCM to integrate the respective sectors efficiently. Trial Registration German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00025074. Registered 16 April 2021—retrospectively registered.

Suggested Citation

  • Moritz Platen & Wolfgang Hoffmann & Bernhard Michalowsky, 2025. "Comparing Different Implementation Strategies for Collaborative Dementia Care Management in Terms of Patients’ Characteristics, Unmet Needs, and the Impact on Quality of Life and Costs in Germany," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 271-282, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:9:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00548-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00548-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-024-00548-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-024-00548-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:spr:pharmo:v:9:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00548-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.