Does the hospitalization after a cancer diagnosis modify adherence to process indicators of diabetes care quality?

Composite measures of quality of health care: Evidence mapping of methodology and reporting

Background

Quality indicators are used to quantify the quality of care. A large number of quality indicators makes assessment of overall quality difficult, time consuming and impractical. There is consequently an increasing interest for composite measures based on a combination of multiple indicators.

Objective

To examine the use of different approaches to construct composite measures of quality of care and to assess the use of methodological considerations and justifications.

Methods

We conducted a literature search on PubMed and EMBASE databases (latest update 1 December 2020). For each publication, we extracted information on the weighting and aggregation methodology that had been used to construct composite indicator(s).

Results

A total of 2711 publications were identified of which 145 were included after a screening process. Opportunity scoring with equal weights was the most used approach (86/145, 59%) followed by all-or-none scoring (48/145, 33%). Other approaches regarding aggregation or weighting of individual indicators were used in 32 publications (22%). The rationale for selecting a specific type of composite measure was reported in 36 publications (25%), whereas 22 papers (15%) addressed limitations regarding the composite measure.

Conclusion

Opportunity scoring and all-or-none scoring are the most frequently used approaches when constructing composite measures of quality of care. The attention towards the rationale and limitations of the composite measures appears low.

Discussion

Considering the widespread use and the potential implications for decision-making of composite measures, a high level of transparency regarding the construction process of the composite and the functionality of the measures is crucial.

The impact of cancer on diabetes outcomes

BACKGROUND

Survival from many cancer types is steadily increasing, and as a result, a growing number of cancer patients will live with other chronic diseases, of which diabetes is one of the most prevalent. This study aims to describe the impact of cancer on health outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and to compare the effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention in diabetes patients with and without cancer.

METHODS

The randomized controlled trial Diabetes Care in General Practice (DCGP) included 1381 patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Patients were randomized to either six years of structured personal diabetes care or routine care. In a post hoc analysis, we followed patients for 19 years in Danish national registries for the occurrence of diabetes-related outcomes. We used Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios for outcomes.

RESULTS

At diagnosis 48 patients had cancer, and 243 patients were diagnosed with cancer during follow up. Patients with diabetes and cancer had excess all-cause mortality (HR 3.33; 95%CI 2.72-4.06), as well as an increased incidence of myocardial infarction (HR 1.76; 95%CI 1.29-2.39) and any diabetes-related outcome (HR 1.36; 95%CI 1.07-1.71). The intervention reduced the risk of both these endpoints in patients without cancer. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of the intervention among patients with and without cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes patients with cancer had an increased risk of myocardial infarction and any diabetes-related outcome. The observed positive effect of structured personal diabetes care on clinical outcomes did not differ between patients with and without cancer. Attention to and prevention of diabetes complications in patients with both type 2 diabetes and cancer is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01074762 (February 24, 2010).