Health Complexity Assessment in Primary Care: a validity and feasibility study of the INTERMED tool - de Oliveira, Camila Almeida; Weber, Bernardete; dos Santos, Jair Lício Ferreira; Zucoloto, Miriane Lucindo; de Camargo, Lisa Laredo; Zanetti, Ana Carolina Guidorizzi; Rzewuska, Magdalena; de Azevedo-Marques, João Mazzoncini (medRxiv, 2020)
Background While considerable attention has been devoted to patients’ health complexity epidemiology, comparatively less attention has been paid to tools to identify and describe, in a personalized and comprehensive way, “complex patients” in primary health care (PHC).Objective To evaluate INTERMED tool’s validity and feasibility to assess health complexity in PHC.Design Cross-sectional psychometric study.Setting Three Brazilian PHC Units.Participants 230 patients above 18 years of both sexes.Measurements Spearman’s rho assessed concurrent validity between the whole INTERMED and their four domains (biological, psychological, social, health system) with other well-validated instruments. Pearson’s X2 measured associations of the sum of INTERMED “current state” items with use of PHC, other health services and medications. Cronbach’s Alpha assessed internal consistency. INTERMED acceptability was measured through patients’ views on questions and answers’ understanding and application length as well as objective application length. Applicability was measured through patients’ views on its relevance to describe health aspects essential to care and INTERMED’s items-related information already existing in patients’ health records.Results 18.3% of the patients were “complex” (INTERMED’s 20/21 cut-off). Spearman’s correlations located between 0.44 - 0.65. Pearson’s coefficients found were X2 = 26.812 and X2 = 26.883 (both p = 0.020) and X2 = 28.270 (p = 0.013). Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.802. All patients’ views were very favorable. Median application time was 7 minutes and 90% of the INTERMED’s interviews took up to 14 minutes. Only the biological domain had all its items described in more than 50% of the health records.Limitations We utilized the cutoff point used in all previous studies, found in research performed in specialized health services.Conclusion We found good feasibility (acceptability and applicability), and validity measures comparable to those found from specialized health services. Further investigations of INTERMED predictive validity and suitability for routine PHC use are worthwhile.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was financed in part by the Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement Brazil (CAPES) Finance Code 001. It was also funded by the Foundation for Support to Teaching, Research and Assistance at Clinics Hospital of Ribeirao Preto Medical School of University of Sao Paulo Brazil (FAEPA). A discussion regarding it occurred during an international meeting funded by the Global Challenge Research Fund (GCRF) Internal Pump Priming Fund Round 5 of the University of Aberdeen. The funding sources had no role in the design, conduct, and reporting of the study. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Research Ethics Committee of the Community Health Center of the Ribeirao Preto Medical School of the University of Sao Paulo approved the study (n 99566718.0.0000.5414 in 10/2018).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAs the data presents sensitive information that can facilitate the recognition of specific people, they are not in public repositories, but can be requested for the first caseBHUBasic Health UnitCAOCamila Almeida de OliveiraCCICharlson Comorbidity IndexFHSFamily Health StrategyHADSHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleHCPHealth Care ProviderLLCLisa Laredo de CamargoMOS-SSSMedical Outcomes Study – Social Support SurveyPHCPrimary Health CareRCTRandomized Controlled TrialREDCapResearch Electronic Data CaptureWHOQOL-BREFWHO Quality of Life – Bref