Comorbidity and patient-reported quality of care: an evaluation of the primary care based German disease management program for type 2 diabetes

The use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument in diabetes care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was created to assess whether provided care is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, according to patients. We aimed to identify all studies using the PACIC in diabetic patients to explore (i) how overall PACIC scores varied across studies and (ii) whether scores varied according to healthcare delivery, patient and instrument characteristics.

Data sources

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed Central (PMC), from 2005 to 2016.

Study selection

Studies of any design using the PACIC in diabetic patients.

Data extraction and synthesis

We extracted data on healthcare delivery, patient, and instrument characteristics, and overall PACIC score and standard deviation. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions.

Results

We identified 34 studies including 25 942 patients from 13 countries, mostly in North America and Europe, using different versions of the PACIC in 11 languages. The overall PACIC score fluctuated between 1.7 and 4.2, with a pooled score of 3.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-3.2, 95% predictive interval 1.9-4.2), with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). The PACIC variance was not explained by healthcare delivery or patient characteristics, but by the number of points on the response scale (5 vs. 11) and the continent (Asia vs. others).

Conclusion

The PACIC is a widely used instrument, but the direct comparison of PACIC scores between studies should be performed with caution as studies may employ different versions and the influence of cultural norms and language on the PACIC score remains unknown.

[Integration of secondary data into national diabetes surveillance : Background, aims and results of the secondary data workshop at the Robert Koch Institute]

Epidemiological data provide evidence that diabetes mellitus is a highly relevant public health issue in Germany as in many other countries. The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) is in the process of building a national diabetes surveillance system that is aimed at establishing indicator-based public health monitoring of diabetes population dynamics using primary and secondary data. The purpose of the workshop was to conduct an inventory of available secondary data sources and to discuss data contents, data access, data analysis examples in addition to the options for ongoing data use for diabetes surveillance.

Diabetes care: Comparison of patients' and healthcare professionals' assessment using the PACIC instrument

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

Whereas the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument measures the extent to which care received by patients is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, the 5As model emphasizes self-management and community resources, 2 key components of the Chronic Care Model. We aimed at comparing evaluation of diabetes care, as reported by patients with diabetes and healthcare professionals (HCPs), using these instruments.

METHODS

Two independent samples, patients with diabetes (n = 395) and HCPs (including primary and secondary care physicians and nurses; n = 287), responded to the 20-item PACIC and the six 5As model questions. The PACIC-5A (questions scored on a 5-point scale, 1 = never to 5 = always) was adapted for HCPs (modified-PACIC-5A). In both samples, means and standard deviations for each question as well as proportions of responses to each response modality were computed, and an overall score was calculated for the 20-item PACIC.

RESULTS

Patients' and HCPs' overall scores were 2.6 (SD 0.9) and 3.6 (SD 0.5), respectively, with HCPs reporting higher scores for all questions except 1. Patients' education and self-management, referral/follow-up and participation in community programs were rated as low by patients and HCPs.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professionals, particularly diabetes specialists, tended to report better PACIC scores than patients, suggesting that care was not reported similarly when received or provided. Evaluation differences might be reduced by a closer collaboration between patients and HCPs, as well as the implementation of community-based interventions considering more patients' perspectives such as patients' education and self-management.

Disease management programs for type 2 diabetes in Germany: a systematic literature review evaluating effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Disease management programs (DMPs) are intended to improve the care of persons with chronic diseases. Despite numerous studies there is no unequivocal evidence about the effectiveness of DMPs in Germany.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic literature review in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CCMed databases. Our analysis included all controlled studies in which patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in a DMP were compared to type 2 diabetes patients receiving routine care with respect to process, outcome, and economic parameters.

RESULTS

The 9 studies included in the analysis were highly divergent with respect to their characteristics and the process and outcome parameters studied in each. No study had data beyond the year 2008. In 3 publications, the DMP patients had a lower mortality than the control patients (2.3%, 11.3%, and 7.17% versus 4.7%, 14.4%, and 14.72%). In 2 publications, DMP participation was found to be associated with a mean survival time of 1044.94 (± 189.87) days, as against 985.02 (± 264.68) in the control group. No consistent effect was seen with respect to morbidity, quality of life, or economic parameters. 7 publications from 5 studies revealed positive effects on process parameters for DMP participants.

CONCLUSION

The observed beneficial trends with respect to mortality and survival time, as well as improvements in process parameters, indicate that DMPs can, in fact, improve the care of patients with diabetes. Further evaluation is needed, because some changes in outcome parameters (an important indicator of the quality of care) may only be observable over a longer period of time.