Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug 13;8(1):202.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1105-6.

Population segmentation based on healthcare needs: a systematic review

Jia Loon Chong  1 , Ka Keat Lim  1 , David Bruce Matchar  2
Affiliations

Population segmentation based on healthcare needs: a systematic review

Jia Loon Chong et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Healthcare needs-based population segmentation is a promising approach for enabling the development and evaluation of integrated healthcare service models that meet healthcare needs. However, healthcare policymakers interested in understanding adult population healthcare needs may not be aware of suitable population segmentation tools available for use in the literature and barring better-known alternatives, may reinvent the wheel by creating and validating their own tools rather than adapting available tools in the literature. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review to identify all available tools which operationalize healthcare need-based population segmentation, to help inform policymakers developing population-level health service programmes.

Methods: Using search terms reflecting concepts of population, healthcare need and segmentation, we systematically reviewed and included articles containing healthcare need-based adult population segmentation tools in PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science databases. We included tools comprising mutually exclusive segments with prognostic value for clinically relevant outcomes. An updated secondary search on the PubMed database was also conducted as the last search was conducted 2 years ago. All identified tools were characterized in terms of segment formulation, segmentation base, whether they received peer-reviewed validation, requirement for comprehensive electronic medical records, proprietary status and number of segments.

Results: A total of 16 unique tools were identified from systematically reviewing 9970 articles. Peer-reviewed validation studies were found for 9 of these tools.

Discussion and conclusions: The underlying segmentation basis of most identified tools was found to be conceptually comparable to each other which suggests a broad recognition of archetypical patient overall healthcare need profiles. While many tools operate based on administrative record data, it is noted that healthcare systems without comprehensive electronic medical records would benefit from tools which segment populations through primary data collection. Future work could therefore include development and validation of such primary data collection-based tools. While this study is limited by exclusion of non-English literature, the identified and characterized tools will nonetheless facilitate efforts by policymakers to improve patient-centred care through development and evaluation of services tailored for specific populations segmented by these tools.

Keywords: Community health planning; Health care reform; Health services needs and demand; Integrated care; Person-focused health; Population segmentation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Systematic review workflow. CINAHL, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; WOS, Web of Science
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Categorization tree of identified segmentation tools. ACG, Adjusted Clinical Groups; CRG, Clinical Risk Groups; SSA, Senior Segmentation Algorithm; SG-MOH, Singapore Ministry of Health Segmentation Framework
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Suzman R, Beard J: Global health and aging. In.: World Health Organization; 2011.
    1. Sheri Pruitt, Steve Annandale, JoAnne Epping-Jordan, Jesús M. Fernández Díaz, Mahmud Khan, Adnan Kisa, Joshua Klapow, Roberto Nuño Solinis, Srinath Reddy, Ed Wagner: Care for chronic conditions. In.: World Health Organization; 2002.
    1. Bauman AE, Fardy HJ, Harris PG. Getting it right: why bother with patient-centred care? Med J Aust. 2003;179(5):253–256. - PubMed
    1. Ouwens M, Wollersheim H, Hermens R, Hulscher M, Grol R. Integrated care programmes for chronically ill patients: a review of systematic reviews. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17(2):141–146. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzi016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vuik SI, Mayer E, Darzi A. A quantitative evidence base for population health: applying utilization-based cluster analysis to segment a patient population. Popul Health Metr. 2016;14:44. doi: 10.1186/s12963-016-0115-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources