Aung Eindra, Donald Maria, Coll Joseph, Dower Jo, Williams Gail M, Doi Suhail A R
School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):1621-32. doi: 10.1111/hex.12151. Epub 2013 Oct 24.
To examine the impact of concordant and discordant comorbidities on patients' assessments of providers' adherence to diabetes-specific care guidelines and quality of chronic illness care.
A population-based survey of 3761 adults with type 2 diabetes, living in Queensland, Australia was conducted in 2008. Based on self-reports, participants were grouped into four mutually exclusive comorbid categories: none, concordant only, discordant only and both concordant and discordant. Outcome measures included patient-reported providers' adherence to guideline-recommended care and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC), which measures care according to the Chronic Care Model. Analyses using the former measure included logistic regressions, and the latter measure included univariate analysis of variance, both unadjusted and adjusted for sampling region, gender, age, educational attainment, diabetes duration and treatment status.
Having concordant comorbidities increased the odds of patient-reported providers' adherence for 7 of the 11 guideline-recommended care activities in unadjusted analyses. However, the effect remained significant for only two provider activities (reviews of medication and/or complications and blood pressure examinations) when adjusted. A similar pattern was found for the both concordant and discordant comorbidity category. The presence of discordant comorbidities influenced only one provider activity (blood pressure examinations). No association between comorbidity type and the overall PACIC score was found.
Comorbidity type is associated with diabetes-specific care, but does not seem to influence broader aspects of chronic illness care directly. Providers need to place more emphasis on care activities which are not comorbidity-specific and thus transferable across different chronic conditions.
探讨并存疾病的一致性和不一致性对患者评估医疗服务提供者遵循糖尿病特定护理指南情况及慢性病护理质量的影响。
2008年对澳大利亚昆士兰州的3761名2型糖尿病成年患者进行了一项基于人群的调查。根据自我报告,参与者被分为四个相互排斥的并存疾病类别:无、仅一致性并存疾病、仅不一致性并存疾病以及一致性和不一致性并存疾病都有。结果指标包括患者报告的医疗服务提供者对指南推荐护理的遵循情况以及慢性病护理患者评估(PACIC),后者根据慢性病护理模型来衡量护理情况。使用前一项指标的分析包括逻辑回归,后一项指标的分析包括单因素方差分析,均未调整以及在调整了抽样地区、性别、年龄、教育程度、糖尿病病程和治疗状态后进行分析。
在未调整的分析中,存在一致性并存疾病增加了患者报告的医疗服务提供者对11项指南推荐护理活动中7项的遵循几率。然而,调整后仅两项医疗服务提供者活动(药物和/或并发症复查以及血压检查)的效果仍然显著。一致性和不一致性并存疾病类别也发现了类似模式。不一致性并存疾病的存在仅影响一项医疗服务提供者活动(血压检查)。未发现并存疾病类型与总体PACIC评分之间存在关联。
并存疾病类型与糖尿病特定护理相关,但似乎并未直接影响慢性病护理的更广泛方面。医疗服务提供者需要更加重视非并存疾病特定的护理活动,从而能够在不同慢性病之间进行转换。