Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 14, 2025

Assessment of Social Interaction Behaviors
Published on: February 25, 2011
Effect of a multimorbidity intervention on health care utilization and costs in Ontario: randomized controlled trial
Bridget L Ryan1, Luke Mondor2, Walter P Wodchis2
1Centre for Studies in Family Medicine and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Ryan), Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ont.; Health System Performance Network (Mondor); ICES (Mondor, Wodchis); Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners (Wodchis), Mississauga, Ont.; Health System Performance Network and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Wodchis), University of Toronto; Department of Family and Community Medicine (Glazier), University of Toronto, Toronto Ont.; Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, Department of Family Medicine (Meredith), Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ont.; Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine (Fortin), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Que.; Centre for Studies in Family Medicine (Stewart), Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ont. bryan@uwo.ca.
Background:
Patients with multimorbidity require coordinated and patient-centred care. Telemedicine IMPACT Plus provides such care for complex patients in Toronto, Ontario. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing health care utilization and costs at 1-year postintervention for an intervention group and 2 control groups (RCT and propensity matched).
Methods:
Data for 82 RCT intervention and 74 RCT control participants were linked with health administrative data. We created a second control group using health administrative data-derived propensity scores to match (1:5) intervention participants with comparators. We evaluated 5 outcomes: acute hospital admissions, emergency department visits, costs of all insured health care, 30-day hospital readmissions and 7-day family physician follow-up after hospital discharge using generalized linear models for RCT controls and generalized estimating equations for propensity-matched controls.
Results:
There were no significant differences between intervention participants and either control group. For hospital admissions, emergency department visits, costs and readmissions, the relative differences ranged from 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-2.60) to 1.67 (95% CI 0.82-3.38) with intervention costs at about Can$20 000, RCT controls costs at around Can$15 000 and propensity controls costs at around Can$17 000. There was a higher rate of follow-up with a family physician for the intervention participants compared with the RCT controls (53.13 v. 21.43 per 100 hospital discharges; relative difference 2.48 [95% CI 0.98-6.29]) and propensity-matched controls (49.94 v. 28.21 per 100 hospital discharges; relative difference 1.81 [95% CI 0.99-3.30]).
Interpretation:
Despite a complex patient-centred intervention, there was no significant improvement in health care utilization or cost. Future research requires larger sample sizes and should include outcomes important to patients and the health care system, and longer follow-up periods.
Ontario:
ClinicalTrials.gov : 104191.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...
Factors Affecting Illness
For instance, risk factors are connected to illness,...
Integrated Healthcare System
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Secondary Healthcare System
Documentation in Long-Term and Home Healthcare Setting
Long-Term Care Facilities

