Assessing the validity of a Parkinson's care evaluation: the PRIME-NL study.

INTRODUCTION

The PRIME-NL study prospectively evaluates a new integrated and personalized care model for people with parkinsonism, including Parkinson's disease, in a selected region (PRIME) in the Netherlands. We address the generalizability and sources of selection and confounding bias of the PRIME-NL study by examining baseline and 1-year compliance data.

METHODS

First, we assessed regional baseline differences between the PRIME and the usual care (UC) region using healthcare claims data of almost all people with Parkinson's disease in the Netherlands (the source population). Second, we compared our questionnaire sample to the source population to determine generalizability. Third, we investigated sources of bias by comparing the PRIME and UC questionnaire sample on baseline characteristics and 1-year compliance.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar in the PRIME (n = 1430) and UC (n = 26,250) source populations. The combined questionnaire sample (n = 920) was somewhat younger and had a slightly longer disease duration than the combined source population. Compared to the questionnaire sample in the PRIME region, the UC questionnaire sample was slightly younger, had better cognition, had a longer disease duration, had a higher educational attainment and consumed more alcohol. 1-year compliance of the questionnaire sample was higher in the UC region (96%) than in the PRIME region (92%).

CONCLUSION

The generalizability of the PRIME-NL study seems to be good, yet we found evidence of some selection bias. This selection bias necessitates the use of advanced statistical methods for the final evaluation of PRIME-NL, such as inverse probability weighting or propensity score matching. The PRIME-NL study provides a unique window into the validity of a large-scale care evaluation for people with a chronic disease, in this case parkinsonism.