Suppr超能文献

从患者特征、未满足的需求以及对德国生活质量和成本的影响方面比较协作性痴呆症护理管理的不同实施策略。

Comparing Different Implementation Strategies for Collaborative Dementia Care Management in Terms of Patients' Characteristics, Unmet Needs, and the Impact on Quality of Life and Costs in Germany.

作者信息

Platen Moritz, Hoffmann Wolfgang, Michalowsky Bernhard

机构信息

German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), site Rostock/Greifswald, Ellernholzstrasse 1-2, 17489, Greifswald, Germany.

Institute for Community Medicine, Section Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald (UMG), Ellernholzstrasse 1-2, 17489, Greifswald, Germany.

出版信息

Pharmacoecon Open. 2025 Mar;9(2):271-282. doi: 10.1007/s41669-024-00548-w. Epub 2024 Dec 14.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the implementation of collaborative dementia care management (cDCM) across two settings regarding patients' characteristics, unmet needs, and the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and costs.

METHODS

This analysis was based on data from the DCM:IMPact study, implementing cDCM in a physician network (n = 22 practices) and two day care centers (DCC) for community-dwelling persons with dementia over 6 months in Germany. Participants completed comprehensive assessments at baseline and 6 months after, soliciting sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, unmet needs, HRQoL and healthcare resource utilization. Patient characteristics and unmet needs were analyzed descriptively, and the impact of cDCM on costs and HRQoL was assessed using multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

At baseline, patients from the physician network (n = 46) exhibited more pronounced neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI mean score 14 versus 10, p = 0.075), were more frequently diagnosed with dementia (76% versus 56%, p = 0.040), were less likely assigned a care level by the long-term care insurance (63% versus 91%, p ≤ 0.001) to access formal care services and had more unmet needs (12.8 versus 11.0, p ≤ 0.001), especially for social care services than DCC patients (n = 57). After 6 months, the adjusted means indicated that cDCM implemented in the physician network was more effective [EQ-5D-5L utility score; 0.061; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.032 to 0.153] and less costly (- 5950€; 95% CI - 8415€ to - 3485€) than cDCM implemented in DCC.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and the healthcare system may benefit more when cDCM is implemented in physician networks. However, patient characteristics indicated two samples with specific conditions and various unmet needs using different ways of accessing healthcare, demonstrating the need for cDCM in both settings, which must be considered when implementing cDCM to integrate the respective sectors efficiently.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00025074. Registered 16 April 2021-retrospectively registered.

摘要

目的

比较在两种环境中实施的协作性痴呆症护理管理(cDCM)在患者特征、未满足的需求以及对健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)和成本的影响方面的情况。

方法

本分析基于DCM:IMPact研究的数据,在德国为社区居住的痴呆症患者在一个医生网络(n = 22个诊所)和两个日间护理中心(DCC)实施cDCM,为期6个月。参与者在基线和6个月后完成了全面评估,收集了社会人口统计学和临床特征、未满足的需求、HRQoL和医疗资源利用情况。对患者特征和未满足的需求进行了描述性分析,并使用多变量回归模型评估了cDCM对成本和HRQoL的影响。

结果

在基线时,医生网络中的患者(n = 46)表现出更明显的神经精神症状(神经精神症状问卷平均得分14对10,p = 0.075),更频繁地被诊断为痴呆症(76%对56%,p = 0.040),长期护理保险为其分配护理级别的可能性较小(63%对91%,p≤0.001)以获得正式护理服务,且有更多未满足的需求(12.8对11.0,p≤0.001),尤其是在社会护理服务方面比DCC患者(n = 57)更多。6个月后,调整后的均值表明,在医生网络中实施的cDCM比在DCC中实施的cDCM更有效[EQ-5D-5L效用得分;0.061;95%置信区间(CI)-0.032至0.153]且成本更低(-5950€;95%CI -8415€至-3485€)。

结论

当在医生网络中实施cDCM时,患者和医疗系统可能会受益更多。然而,患者特征表明这两个样本具有特定情况和各种未满足的需求,使用不同的方式获得医疗保健,这表明在两种环境中都需要cDCM,在实施cDCM以有效整合各个部门时必须考虑到这一点。

试验注册

德国临床试验注册中心:DRKS00025074。2021年4月16日注册——追溯注册。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9f58/11865390/6e729c9adb6c/41669_2024_548_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验