Prevalence and Risk Factors for Chronic Edema in U.K. Community Nursing Services.

Background and Study Design: Chronic edema (CO) is believed to be a major clinical problem within community nursing services in the United Kingdom. This study was undertaken as part of the LIMPRINT international study to determine the number of people with CO and its impact on health services. Methods and Results: Three urban-based community nursing services participated in the United Kingdom with prospective evaluation for 4 weeks of all patients receiving nursing care using a questionnaire-based interview and clinical assessment using the LIMPRINT tools. Of the total 2541 patients assessed, 1440 (56.7%) were considered to have CO, comprising Leicester City [768/1298 (59.2%)], Nottingham West [124/181 (68.5%)], and Nottingham City [548/1062 (51.6%)]. The mean age for women with CO was 78.6 (standard deviation [SD] 12.8) years and that for men with CO was 72.9 (SD 14.5). More patients with CO suffered from diabetes (32.1% vs. 27.9%, p = 0.027), heart failure/ischemic heart disease (27.3% vs. 14.0%, p < 0.001), and peripheral arterial occlusive disease (5.5% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). By far the greatest association was with the presence of a wound (73.6% vs. 37.9%, p < 0.001). Cellulitis affected 628 patients (24.7%) and 688 patients (47.8%) had a concurrent leg ulcer. Rates of reduced mobility (71.6% vs. 61.9%) and obesity were higher in those with CO. Six independent factors associated with CO were service location, age, ethnicity, obesity, heart failure, and the presence of a wound. Conclusion: CO is a major and growing health care problem within primary care that has been previously unrecognized and requires effective service provision.

The Impact of Patient-Centered versus Didactic Education Programs in Chronic Patients by Severity: The Case of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Education leads to better health-related decisions and protective behaviors, being especially important for patients with chronic conditions. Self-management education programs have been shown to be beneficial for patients with different chronic conditions and to have a higher impact on health outcomes than does didactic education. OBJECTIVE: To investigate improvements in glycemic control (measured by glycated hemoglobin A1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Our comparative trial involved one group of patients receiving patient-centered education and another receiving didactic education. We dealt with selection bias issues, estimated the different impact of both programs, and validated our analysis using quantile regression techniques. RESULTS: We found evidence of better mean glycemic control in patients receiving the patient-centered program, which engaged better patients. Nevertheless, that differential impact is nonmonotonic. Patients initially at the healthy range at the patient-centered program maintained their condition better. Patients close to, but not within, the healthy range benefited equally from attending either program. Patients with very high glycemic level benefited significantly more from attending the patient-centered program. Finally, patients with the worst initial glycemic control (far from the healthy range) improved equally their diabetic condition, regardless of which program they attended. CONCLUSIONS: Different patients are sensitive to different categories of education programs. The optimal, cost-effective design of preventative programs for patients with chronic conditions needs to account for the different impact in different "patient categories." This implies stratifying patients and providing the appropriate preventative education program, or looking for alternative policy implementations for unresponsive patients who have the most severe condition and are the most costly.