Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 2006;114:1432-1445
Published online before print September 4, 2006, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.177322
Free Article
This Article
Free upon publication Free Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Data Supplement
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
114/13/1432    most recent
CIRCULATIONAHA.106.177322v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Krumholz, H. M.
Right arrow Articles by Faxon, D. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Krumholz, H. M.
Right arrow Articles by Faxon, D. P.
Related Collections
Right arrow Health policy and outcome research
Right arrow Congestive
Right arrow AHA Statements and Guidelines

(Circulation. 2006;114:1432-1445.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.


AHA Scientific Statement

A Taxonomy for Disease Management

A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Disease Management Taxonomy Writing Group

Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, FAHA; Peter M. Currie, MHS; Barbara Riegel, DNSc, RN, CS, FAHA; Christopher O. Phillips, MD, MPH; Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH; Renee Smith, MPA; Clyde W. Yancy, MD, FAHA; David P. Faxon, MD, FAHA

Background— Disease management has shown great promise as a means of reorganizing chronic care and optimizing patient outcomes. Nevertheless, disease management programs are widely heterogeneous and lack a shared definition of disease management, which limits our ability to compare and evaluate different programs. To address this problem, the American Heart Association’s Disease Management Taxonomy Writing Group developed a system of classification that can be used both to categorize and compare disease management programs and to inform efforts to identify specific factors associated with effectiveness.

Methods— The AHA Writing Group began with a conceptual model of disease management and its components and subsequently validated this model over a wide range of disease management programs. A systematic MEDLINE search was performed on the terms heart failure, diabetes, and depression, together with disease management, case management, and care management. The search encompassed articles published in English between 1987 and 2005. We then selected studies that incorporated (1) interventions designed to improve outcomes and/or reduce medical resource utilization in patients with heart failure, diabetes, or depression and (2) clearly defined protocols with at least 2 prespecified components traditionally associated with disease management. We analyzed the study protocols and used qualitative research methods to develop a disease management taxonomy with our conceptual model as the organizing framework.

Results— The final taxonomy includes the following 8 domains: (1) Patient population is characterized by risk status, demographic profile, and level of comorbidity. (2) Intervention recipient describes the primary targets of disease management intervention and includes patients and caregivers, physicians and allied healthcare providers, and healthcare delivery systems. (3) Intervention content delineates individual components, such as patient education, medication management, peer support, or some form of postacute care, that are included in disease management. (4) Delivery personnel describes the network of healthcare providers involved in the delivery of disease management interventions, including nurses, case managers, physicians, pharmacists, case workers, dietitians, physical therapists, psychologists, and information systems specialists. (5) Method of communication identifies a broad range of disease management delivery systems that may include in-person visitation, audiovisual information packets, and some form of electronic or telecommunication technology. (6) Intensity and complexity distinguish between the frequency and duration of exposure, as well as the mix of program components, with respect to the target for disease management. (7) Environment defines the context in which disease management interventions are typically delivered and includes inpatient or hospital-affiliated outpatient programs, community or home-based programs, or some combination of these factors. (8) Clinical outcomes include traditional, frequently assessed primary and secondary outcomes, as well as patient-centered measures, such as adherence to medication, self-management, and caregiver burden.

Conclusions— This statement presents a taxonomy for disease management that describes critical program attributes and allows for comparisons across interventions. Routine application of the taxonomy may facilitate better comparisons of structure, process, and outcome measures across a range of disease management programs and should promote uniformity in the design and conduct of studies that seek to validate disease management strategies.


Key Words: AHA Scientific Statements • disease management • chronic disease • delivery of health care • classificationheart failure




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Health Aff (Millwood)Home page
J. Sochalski, T. Jaarsma, H. M. Krumholz, A. Laramee, J. J.V. McMurray, M. D. Naylor, M. W. Rich, B. Riegel, and S. Stewart
What Works In Chronic Care Management: The Case Of Heart Failure
Health Aff., January 1, 2009; 28(1): 179 - 189.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
J. A. Spertus
Evolving Applications for Patient-Centered Health Status Measures
Circulation, November 11, 2008; 118(20): 2103 - 2110.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Circ Heart FailHome page
E. A. Bocchi, F. Cruz, G. Guimaraes, L. F. Pinho Moreira, V. S. Issa, S. M. Ayub Ferreira, P. R. Chizzola, G. E. C. Souza, S. Brandao, and F. Bacal
Long-Term Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study Using Repetitive Education at Six-Month Intervals and Monitoring for Adherence in Heart Failure Outpatients: The REMADHE Trial
Circ Heart Fail, July 1, 2008; 1(2): 115 - 124.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Diabetes CareHome page
J. Szecsenyi, T. Rosemann, S. Joos, F. Peters-Klimm, and A. Miksch
German Diabetes Disease Management Programs Are Appropriate for Restructuring Care According to the Chronic Care Model: An evaluation with the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument
Diabetes Care, June 1, 2008; 31(6): 1150 - 1154.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CMAJHome page
D. A. Alter MD PhD
Therapeutic lifestyle and disease-management interventions: pushing the scientific envelope
Can. Med. Assoc. J., October 9, 2007; 177(8): 887 - 889.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Med Care Res RevHome page
A. M. Davis, L. M. Vinci, T. M. Okwuosa, A. R. Chase, and E. S. Huang
Cardiovascular Health Disparities: A Systematic Review of Health Care Interventions
Med Care Res Rev, October 1, 2007; 64(5_suppl): 29S - 100S.
[Abstract] [PDF]