Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although local initiatives commonly express a wish to improve population health and wellbeing using a population health management (PHM) approach, implementation is challenging and existing tools have either a narrow focus or lack transparency. This has created demand for practice-oriented guidance concerning the introduction and requirements of PHM. METHODS: Existing knowledge from scientific literature was combined with expert opinion obtained using an adjusted RAND UCLA appropriateness method, which consisted of six Dutch panels in three Delphi rounds, followed by two rounds of validation by an international panel. RESULTS: The Dutch panels identified 36 items relevant to PHM, in addition to the 97 items across six elements of PHM derived from scientific literature. Of these 133 items, 101 were considered important and 32 ambiguous. The international panel awarded similar scores for 128 of 133 items, with only 5 items remaining unvalidated. Combining literature and expert opinion gave extra weight and validity to the items. DISCUSSION: In developing a maturity index to help assess the use and progress of PHM in health regions, input from experts counterbalanced a previous skewedness of item distribution across the PHM elements and the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC). Participant expertise also improved our understanding of successful PHM implementation, as well as how the six PHM elements are best constituted in a first iteration of a maturity index. Limitations included the number of participants in some panels and ambiguity of language. Further development should focus on item clarity, adoption in practice and item interconnectedness. CONCLUSION: By employing scientific literature enriched with expert opinion, this study provides new insight for both science and practice concerning the composition of PHM elements that influence PHM implementation. This will help guide practices in their quest to implement PHM.