Diabetes care: Comparison of patients' and healthcare professionals' assessment using the PACIC instrument.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: Whereas the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument measures the extent to which care received by patients is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, the 5As model emphasizes self-management and community resources, 2 key components of the Chronic Care Model. We aimed at comparing evaluation of diabetes care, as reported by patients with diabetes and healthcare professionals (HCPs), using these instruments. METHODS: Two independent samples, patients with diabetes (n = 395) and HCPs (including primary and secondary care physicians and nurses; n = 287), responded to the 20-item PACIC and the six 5As model questions. The PACIC-5A (questions scored on a 5-point scale, 1 = never to 5 = always) was adapted for HCPs (modified-PACIC-5A). In both samples, means and standard deviations for each question as well as proportions of responses to each response modality were computed, and an overall score was calculated for the 20-item PACIC. RESULTS: Patients' and HCPs' overall scores were 2.6 (SD 0.9) and 3.6 (SD 0.5), respectively, with HCPs reporting higher scores for all questions except 1. Patients' education and self-management, referral/follow-up and participation in community programs were rated as low by patients and HCPs. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals, particularly diabetes specialists, tended to report better PACIC scores than patients, suggesting that care was not reported similarly when received or provided. Evaluation differences might be reduced by a closer collaboration between patients and HCPs, as well as the implementation of community-based interventions considering more patients' perspectives such as patients' education and self-management.

Mortality of patients with COPD participating in chronic disease management programmes: a happy end?

BACKGROUND: Concerns about increased mortality could question the role of COPD chronic disease management (CDM) programmes. We aimed at extending a recent Cochrane review to assess the effects of CDM on mortality in patients with COPD. METHODS: Mortality data were available for 25 out of 29 trials identified in a COPD integrated care systematic review. Meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed, followed by subgroup analyses according to study length (3-12 months vs >12 months), main intervention component (exercise, self-management, structured follow-up) and use of an action plan. RESULTS: The meta-analysis showed no impact of CDM on mortality (pooled OR: 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.28). CONCLUSIONS: These results do not suggest that CDM programmes expose patients with COPD to excessive mortality risk.

PACIC Instrument: disentangling dimensions using published validation models.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument. More specifically to test all published validation models, using one single data set and appropriate statistical tools. DESIGN: Validation study using data from cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: A population-based sample of non-institutionalized adults with diabetes residing in Switzerland (canton of Vaud). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: French version of the 20-items PACIC instrument (5-point response scale). We conducted validation analyses using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The original five-dimension model and other published models were tested with three types of CFA: based on (i) a Pearson estimator of variance-covariance matrix, (ii) a polychoric correlation matrix and (iii) a likelihood estimation with a multinomial distribution for the manifest variables. All models were assessed using loadings and goodness-of-fit measures. RESULTS: The analytical sample included 406 patients. Mean age was 64.4 years and 59% were men. Median of item responses varied between 1 and 4 (range 1-5), and range of missing values was between 5.7 and 12.3%. Strong floor and ceiling effects were present. Even though loadings of the tested models were relatively high, the only model showing acceptable fit was the 11-item single-dimension model. PACIC was associated with the expected variables of the field. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that the model considering 11 items in a single dimension exhibited the best fit for our data. A single score, in complement to the consideration of single-item results, might be used instead of the five dimensions usually described.

[Implementation of a diabetes disease management program in Switzerland: patients' and healthcare professionals' point of view]. / Mise en place d'un programme de prévention et de prise en charge du diabète en Suisse: le point de vue des patients et des professionnels de la santé.

BACKGROUND: A reorganization of healthcare systems is required to meet the challenge of the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, e.g. diabetes. In North-America and Europe, several countries have thus developed national or regional chronic disease management programs. In Switzerland, such initiatives have only emerged recently. In 2010, the canton of Vaud set up the "Diabetes Cantonal Program", within the framework of which we conducted a study designed to ascertain the opinions of both diabetic patients and healthcare professionals on the elements that could be integrated into this program, the barriers and facilitators to its development, and the incentives that could motivate these actors to participate. METHODS: We organized eight focus-groups: one with diabetic patients and one with healthcare professionals in the four sanitary areas of the canton of Vaud. The discussions were recorded, transcribed and submitted to a thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Patients and healthcare professionals were rather in favour of the implementation of a cantonal program, although patients were more cautious concerning its necessity. All participants envisioned a set of elements that could be integrated to this program. They also considered that the program could be developed more easily if it were adapted to patients' and professionals' needs and if it used existing structures and professionals. The difficulty to motivate both patients and professionals to participate was mentioned as a barrier to the development of this program however. Quality or financial incentives could therefore be created to overcome this potential problem. CONCLUSION: The identification of the elements to consider, barriers, facilitators and incentives to participate to a chronic disease management program, obtained by exploring the opinions of patients and healthcare professionals, should favour its further development and implementation.

Diabetes care: Opinions, needs and proposed solutions of Swiss patients and healthcare professionals: a qualitative study.

AIMS: To explore, both among patients with diabetes and healthcare professionals, opinions on current diabetes care and the development of the "Regional Diabetes Program". METHODS: We employed qualitative methods (focus groups - FG) and used purposive sampling strategy to recruit patients with diabetes and healthcare professionals. We conducted one diabetic and one professional FG in each of the four health regions of the canton of Vaud/Switzerland. The eight FGs were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was then undertaken. RESULTS: Results showed variability in the perception of the quality of diabetes care, pointed to insufficient information regarding diabetes, and lack of collaboration. Participants also evoked patients' difficulties for self-management, as well as professionals' and patients' financial concerns. Proposed solutions included reinforcing existing structures, developing self-management education, and focusing on comprehensive and coordinated care, communication and teamwork. Patients and professionals were in favour of a "Regional Diabetes Program" tailored to the actors' needs, and viewed it as a means to reinforce existing care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and professionals pointed out similar problems and solutions but explored them differently. Combined with coming quantitative data, these results should help to further develop, adapt and implement the "Regional Diabetes Program".