Arditi Chantal, Iglesias Katia, Peytremann-Bridevaux Isabelle
Health Care Evaluation Unit (UES), Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Lausanne University Hospital, Biopôle 2, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Applied Research and Development Unit, School of Health Sciences Fribourg (HEdS‑FR), University of Applied Sciences and Arts Westrn Switzerland (HES-SO), Route des Cliniques 15, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2018 Dec 1;30(10):743-750. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzy091.
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.
MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed Central (PMC), from 2005 to 2016.
Studies of any design using the PACIC in diabetic patients.
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.
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).
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.
患者慢性病照护评估量表（PACIC）旨在根据患者评估所提供的照护是否符合慢性病照护模式。我们旨在识别所有在糖尿病患者中使用PACIC的研究，以探讨（i）不同研究中PACIC总分如何变化，以及（ii）分数是否因医疗服务提供、患者和工具特征而异。
2005年至2016年的MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO、CINAHL和PubMed Central（PMC）。
在糖尿病患者中使用PACIC的任何设计研究。
我们提取了关于医疗服务提供、患者和工具特征的数据，以及PACIC总分和标准差。我们进行了随机效应荟萃分析和荟萃回归。
我们识别出34项研究，包括来自13个国家的25942名患者，主要在北美和欧洲，使用11种语言的不同版本的PACIC量表。PACIC总分在1.7至4.2之间波动，合并分数为3.0（95%置信区间2.8 - 3.2，95%预测区间1.9 - 4.2），异质性非常高（I2 = 99%）。PACIC方差不能通过医疗服务提供或患者特征来解释，而是由反应量表上的点数（5分制与11分制）和大洲（亚洲与其他地区）来解释
PACIC是一种广泛使用的工具，但不同研究之间PACIC分数直接比较时应谨慎进行，因为研究可能采用不同版本，且文化规范和语言对PACIC分数影响尚不清楚。
