Tiberg Irén, Lindgren Björn, Carlsson Annelie, Hallström Inger
Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden.
Department of Health Sciences, Lund Universit, Lund, Sweden.
BMC Pediatr. 2016 Jul 15;16:94. doi: 10.1186/s12887-016-0632-8.
Practices regarding hospitalisation of children at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes vary both within countries and internationally, and high-quality evidence of best practice is scarce. The objective of this study was to close some of the gaps in evidence by comparing two alternative regimens for children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: hospital-based care and hospital-based home care (HBHC), referring to specialist care in a home-based setting.
A randomised controlled trial, including 60 children aged 3-15 years, took place at a university hospital in Sweden. When the children were medically stable, they were randomised to either the traditional, hospital-based care or to HBHC.
Two years after diagnosis there were no differences in HbA1c (p = 0.777), in episodes of severe hypoglycaemia (p = 0.167), or in insulin U/kg/24 h (p = 0.269). Over 24 months, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in how parents' reported the impact of paediatric chronic health condition on family (p = 0.138) or in parents' self-reported health-related quality of life (p = 0.067). However, there was a statistically significant difference regarding healthcare satisfaction, favouring HBHC (p = 0.002). In total, healthcare costs (direct costs) were significantly lower in the HBHC group but no statistically significant difference between the two groups in estimated lost production (indirect costs) for the family as a whole. Whereas mothers had a significantly lower value of lost production, when their children were treated within the HBHC regime, fathers had a higher, but not a significantly higher value. The results indicate that HBHC might be a cost-effective strategy in a healthcare sector perspective. When using the wider societal perspective, no difference in cost effectiveness or cost utility was found.
Overall, there are only a few, well-designed and controlled studies that compare hospital care to different models of home care. The results of this study provide empirical support for the safety and feasibility of HBHC when a child is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Our results further indicate that the model of care may have an impact on families' daily living, not only during the initial period of care but for a longer period of time.
ClinicalTrials.gov with identity number NCT00804232 , December 2008.
1型糖尿病确诊时儿童住院治疗的做法在国内和国际上都存在差异,且缺乏最佳实践的高质量证据。本研究的目的是通过比较两种针对1型糖尿病确诊儿童的替代方案来填补一些证据空白:基于医院的护理和基于医院的家庭护理(HBHC),即在家庭环境中接受专科护理。
一项随机对照试验在瑞典的一家大学医院进行,纳入了60名3至15岁的儿童。当儿童病情稳定后,将他们随机分为传统的基于医院的护理组或HBHC组。
诊断两年后,糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)水平(p = 0.777)、严重低血糖发作次数(p = 0.167)或胰岛素用量(U/kg/24小时)(p = 0.269)均无差异。在24个月期间,两组家长报告的小儿慢性健康状况对家庭的影响(p = 0.138)或家长自我报告的健康相关生活质量(p = 0.067)方面均无统计学显著差异。然而,在医疗满意度方面存在统计学显著差异,HBHC组更受青睐(p = 0.002)。总体而言,HBHC组的医疗费用(直接费用)显著较低,但两组在整个家庭的估计生产损失(间接费用)方面无统计学显著差异。虽然当孩子在HBHC模式下接受治疗时,母亲的生产损失价值显著较低,但父亲的生产损失价值较高,但无显著差异。结果表明,从医疗保健部门的角度来看,HBHC可能是一种具有成本效益的策略。从更广泛的社会角度来看,在成本效益或成本效用方面未发现差异。
总体而言,只有少数精心设计和对照的研究比较了医院护理与不同的家庭护理模式。本研究结果为1型糖尿病确诊儿童采用HBHC的安全性和可行性提供了实证支持。我们的结果进一步表明,护理模式可能不仅在护理初期,而且在更长时间内对家庭日常生活产生影响。
ClinicalTrials.gov,识别号NCT00804232,2008年12月。