Malnutrition is associated with postoperative complications in elderly patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Malnutrition in elderly patients with hip fracture has been described as a factor associated with poor outcomes. This evidence for elderly patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis is not well-established. METHODS: We retrospectively studied a cohort of patients with an age ≥65 years admitted to the hospital for THA between January 2018 and December 2020. Demographic characteristics were collected. Albumin and total lymphocyte count were included in the pre-operative analysis and 24h postoperatively. Nutritional screening was carried out 24h postoperatively. GLIM criteria were applied for the diagnosis of malnutrition. RESULTS: 25 patients out of the total cohort of 65 (38.4%) were malnourished. Five out of six patients (83.3%) with postoperative complications presented malnutrition compared with 20 of 59 patients (33.8%) without postoperative complications (P=0.028). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 3.49±0.88 days. Five out of six (83.3%) patients with postoperative complications presented LOS >3 days compared with one out of six patients (16.6%) with LOS ≤3 days (P=0.009). 26 patients (40%) were referred to a community health centre, no differences in diagnosis of malnutrition were detected compared with patients who were discharged home. Patients with a diagnosis of malnutrition were significantly older, had a lower body mass index (BMI), a lower preoperative and postoperative albumin and worse anthropometric parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Malnutrition is associated with postoperative complications and longer LOS in elderly patients with elective THA. Risk factors for malnutrition are older age and low BMI.

Concordance between two methods in measuring treatment adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the concordance between two methods for measuring treatment adherence (TA) and studied the determinants of TA in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study in a primary care center, involving 320 diabetic patients. TA was measured using the Haynes-Sackett (H-S) adherence test during the patient interview and based on pharmacy refill data. TA was calculated globally and by drug groups (antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and antidiabetic drugs). RESULTS: Poor TA as measured by the H-S test was observed in 11.2% of the patients. Based on pharmacy refill data, there was a poor global TA rate of 30.3%, which was 33.3%, 26.6%, and 34.2% for oral antidiabetic, antihypertensive, and lipid-lowering drugs, respectively. Concordance between the two methods was poor. There was no relationship between the degree of disease control and TA as measured by the H-S test. Good TA measured based on pharmacy refill data for antidiabetic and antihypertensive drugs was associated with lower glycosylated hemoglobin and diastolic blood pressure values, respectively. Patients with good global TA showed lower glycosylated hemoglobin, diastolic blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values. The multivariate analysis found good oral antidiabetic adherence to be associated to free pharmacy service; good antihypertensive drug adherence to the existence of comorbidities; and good lipid-lowering drug adherence to a history of ischemic heart disease, and a more experienced physician and/or female physician. CONCLUSION: Concordance between the two methods in assessing TA was low. Approximately one-third of the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus presented poor TA in relation to antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and antidiabetic medication. An improved TA was associated with a better control of the studied parameters. Comorbidities, such as ischemic heart disease and access to free pharmacy service, were identified as determinants of good TA.

Antimuscarinic persistence patterns in newly treated patients with overactive bladder: a retrospective comparative analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Treatment persistence is low in patients with overactive bladder (OAB), but persistence may vary among antimuscarinic agents. This study compared treatment persistence in patients with OAB receiving fesoterodine, solifenacin, or tolterodine as their initial OAB prescription in a routine clinical practice setting. METHODS: This retrospective study used medical records from primary healthcare centers in three locations in Spain; records from patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of OAB who initiated antimuscarinic treatment for OAB (fesoterodine, tolterodine, or solifenacin) were included. The first prescription of one of the OAB study medications was considered the index date; patients were followed for ≥52 weeks. Persistence was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard regression models, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: A total of 1,971 records of patients (58.3 % women; mean age 70.1 years) initiating treatment with fesoterodine (n = 302), solifenacin (n = 952), or tolterodine (n = 717) were included. Unadjusted mean (±SD) treatment duration was 31.5 ± 17.6 weeks for fesoterodine, 29.9 ± 21.4 for solifenacin and 29.0 ± 21.6 for tolterodine (p = 0.217). At week 52, 35.8 % of fesoterodine-treated patients remained on their initial therapy, versus 31.9 % of solifenacin-treated (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95 % CI, 1.05-1.47; p = 0.011) and 30.9 % of tolterodine-treated (HR = 1.28; 95 % CI, 1.07-1.52; p = 0.006) patients. Findings were consistent when the definition for discontinuation was varied. CONCLUSIONS: Overall persistence at week 52 was low, but the cumulative probability of persisting with initial therapy was significantly higher for fesoterodine than for solifenacin or tolterodine in clinical practice in Spain.

Health economics perspective of fesoterodine, tolterodine or solifenacin as first-time therapy for overactive bladder syndrome in the primary care setting in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder (OAB) is associated with high healthcare costs, which may be partially driven by drug treatment. There is little comparative data on antimuscarinic drugs with respect to resource use and costs. This study was conducted to address this gap and the growing need for naturalistic studies comparing health economics outcomes in adult patients with OAB syndrome initiating treatment with different antimuscarinic drugs in a primary care setting in Spain. METHODS: Medical records from the databases of primary healthcare centres in three locations in Spain were assessed retrospectively. Men and women ≥18 years of age who initiated treatment with fesoterodine, tolterodine or solifenacin for OAB between 2008 and 2010 were followed for 52 weeks. Healthcare resource utilization and related costs in the Spanish National Health System were compared. Comparisons among drugs were made using multivariate general linear models adjusted for location, age, sex, time since diagnosis, Charlson comorbidity index, and medication possession ratio. RESULTS: A total of 1,971 medical records of patients (58.3% women; mean age, 70.1 [SD:10.6] years) initiating treatment with fesoterodine (n = 302), solifenacin (n = 952) or tolterodine (n = 717) were examined. Annual mean cost per patient was €1798 (95% CI: €1745; €1848). Adjusted mean (95% bootstrap CI) healthcare costs were significantly lower in patients receiving fesoterodine (€1639 [1542; 1725]) compared with solifenacin (€1780 [€1699; €1854], P = 0.022) or tolterodine (€1893 [€1815; €1969], P = 0.001). Cost differences occurred because of significantly fewer medical visits, and less use of absorbent products and OAB-related concomitant medication in the fesoterodine group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with solifenacin and tolterodine, fesoterodine was a cost-saving therapy for treatment of OAB in the primary care setting in Spain.

Obtaining the mean relative weights of the cost of care in Catalonia (Spain): retrospective application of the adjusted clinical groups case-mix system in primary health care.

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to obtain the mean relative weights (MRWs) of the cost of care through the retrospective application of the adjusted clinical groups (ACGs) in several primary health care (PHC) centres in Catalonia (Spain) in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This is a retrospective study based on computerized medical records. All patients attended by 13 PHC teams in 2008 were included. The principle measurements were: demographic variables (age and sex), dependent variables (number of diagnoses and total costs), and case-mix or co-morbidity variables (International Classification of Primary Care). The costs model for each patient was established by differentiating the fix costs from the variable costs. In the bivariate analysis, the Student's t, analysis of variance, chi-squared, Pearson's linear correlation and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests were used. In order to compare the MRW of the present study with those of the United States (US), the concordance [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC)] and the correlation (coefficient of determination: R²) were measured. RESULTS: The total number of patients studied was 227,235, and the frequentation was 5.9 visits/habitant/year) and with a mean diagnoses number of 4.5 (3.2). The distribution of costs was €148.7 million, of which 29.1% were fixed costs. The mean total cost per patient/year was €654.2 (851.7), which was considered to be the reference MRW. Relationship between study-MRW and US-MRW: ICC was 0.40 [confidential interval (CI) 95%: 0.21-0.60] and the CCC was 0.42 (CI 95%: 0.35-0.49). The correlation between the US MRW and the MRW of the present study can be seen; the adjusted R² value is 0.691. The explanatory power of the ACG classification was 36.9% for the total costs. The R² of the total cost without considering outliers was 56.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology has been shown appropriate for promoting the calculation of the MRW for each category of the classification. The results provide a possible practical application in PHC clinical management.

Comparación entre tres métodos de medida de la multimorbilidad en función del uso de recursos sanitarios en atención primaria / Comparison of three methods for measuring multiple morbidity according to the use of health resources in primary healthcare

Objetivo: Comparar 3 diferentes métodos de medida de la multimorbilidad en función del uso de recursos sanitarios (coste de la asistencia) en atención primaria (AP). Diseño: Estudio retrospectivo realizado a partir de registros médicos informatizados. Emplazamiento: En 13 equipos de AP de Cataluña. Participantes: Pacientes adscritos que demandaron atención durante el año 2008. Medidas principales: Variables sociodemográficas, de comorbilidad y de coste. Los métodos de comparación fueron: a) índice de comorbilidad combinado (ICC): se elaboró un índice propio a partir de las puntuaciones de episodios agudos y crónicos; b) índice de Charlson (iCh), y c) índices de casuística de los Adjusted Clinical Groups: bandas de utilización de recursos (BUR). El modelo de costes se estableció diferenciando los costes fijos (funcionamiento de los centros) y los variables. Análisis estadístico: se desarrollaron 3 modelos de regresión lineal para evaluar la capacidad explicativa de cada medida de comorbilidad; que se compararon a partir del coeficiente de determinación (R2), p<0,05. Resultados: Se seleccionaron 227.235 pacientes; el promedio/unitario del coste de la asistencia fue de 654,2 €. El ICC explica un R2=50,4%, el iCh un R2=29,2% y las BUR un R2=39,7% de la variabilidad del coste. El comportamiento del ICC es aceptable, no obstante con puntuaciones bajas (entre 1 y 3 puntos) no se consiguen resultados tan concluyentes. Conclusiones: El ICC se muestra como un sencillo y posible predictor del coste de la asistencia en AP en situación de práctica clínica habitual. De confirmarse estos resultados posibilitarían una mejora en la comparación de la casuística(AU)

Objective: To compare three methods of measuring multiple morbidity according to the use of health resources (cost of care) in primary healthcare (PHC). Design: Retrospective study using computerized medical records. Setting: Thirteen PHC teams in Catalonia (Spain). Participants: Assigned patients requiring care in 2008. Main measurements: The socio-demographic variables were co-morbidity and costs. Methods of comparison were: a) Combined Comorbidity Index (CCI): an index itself was developed from the scores of acute and chronic episodes, b) Charlson Index (ChI), and c) Adjusted Clinical Groups case-mix: resource use bands (RUB). The cost model was constructed by differentiating between fixed (operational) and variable costs. Statistical analysis: 3 multiple lineal regression models were developed to assess the explanatory power of each measurement of co-morbidity which were compared from the determination coefficient (R2), p< .05. Results: The study included 227,235 patients. The mean unit of cost was €654.2. The CCI explained an R2=50.4%, the ChI an R2=29.2% and BUR an R2=39.7% of the variability of the cost. The behaviour of the ICC is acceptable, albeit with low scores (1 to 3 points), showing inconclusive results. Conclusions: The CCI may be a simple method of predicting PHC costs in routine clinical practice. If confirmed, these results will allow improvements in the comparison of the case-mix(AU)

Inercia y cumplimiento terapéutico en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en atención primaria / Inertia and treatment compliance in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care

Fundamento y objetivo: La inercia terapéutica (IT) y el cumplimiento terapéutico (CT) limitan alcanzar los objetivos de control recomendados para los pacientes. Este estudio valora la IT y el CT en pacientes con diabetes mellitus 2 (DM2) en relación al control glucémico, la presión arterial (PA) y el colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad (colesterol LDL), valorando la relación entre IT y CT. Pacientes y método: Estudio transversal realizado en atención primaria. Se incluyeron 320 pacientes diabéticos. Se valoró si cumplían los objetivos de control (hemoglobina glucosilada [HbA1c]≤7%, presión arterial [PA]≤130/80mmHg, colesterol LDL≤100mg/dl), si se incurrió en IT (ausencia de modificaciones en el tratamiento en caso de no cumplir los objetivos de control) y el CT (recuento de recetas retiradas de farmacia). Resultados: Un 66,4% de los pacientes alcanzaron el objetivo de control para la HbA1c, un 43,2% para la PA y un 40,5% para el colesterol LDL. Se incurrió en IT en un 86,4% para el colesterol LDL, en un 76,7% para la PA y en un 40,6% para la HbA1c. El porcentaje de incumplimiento terapéutico fue del 36,1, 37,5 y 32,0% para los antidiabéticos, antihipertensivos e hipolipidemiantes, respectivamente. Los pacientes con mayor edad fueron mejor cumplidores. La IT no se relacionó con el CT. No hubo diferencias según sexo en cuanto al grado de control, la IT, la utilización de fármacos, ni el CT. Conclusiones: La IT y el CT tienen un papel importante en la no consecución de los objetivos de control en los pacientes diabéticos, especialmente en la PA y los lípidos. El CT no se relaciona con la IT (AU)

Background and objectives: Therapeutic inertia (TI) and therapeutic compliance (TC) are 2 important barriers in achieving the therapeutic objectives recommended for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). This study analyzes the TI in patients with DM2 who do not achieve the glycemic, blood pressure (BP) and LDL-cholesterol (c-LDL) control goals, the patients’ TC and the relationship between TI and TC. Patients and methods: This is a descriptive study conducted in a Primary Health Care center. We included 320 diabetic patients. Objectives of control were HbA1c≤7%, blood pressure (BP)≤130/80 mmHg , c-LDL≤100mg/dl, TI (when the objectives of control were not reached and the professional did not change the treatment) and TC (by counting withdrawals of pharmacy prescriptions).Results: The objectives of control for HbA1c, BP and c-LDL were reached by 66.4, 43.2 and 40.5% of patients, respectively. There was TI in the 86.4% of patients for c-LDL, in 76.7% for BP and in 40.6% for HbA1c. The percentage of therapeutic non-compliance was of 36.1, 37.5 and 32.0% for antidiabetic, antihypertensive and lipid lowering drugs, respectively. Elderly patients were better compliants. TI and TC were not associated. We did not find differences in the level of control, TI, use of drugs and TC by sex. Conclusions: TI and TC play an important role in the non-consecution of the control objectives in diabetic patients, especially regarding BP and lipids. TC is not related to TI (AU)

[Comparison of three methods for measuring multiple morbidity according to the use of health resources in primary healthcare]. / Comparación entre tres métodos de medida de la multimorbilidad en función del uso de recursos sanitarios en atención primaria.

OBJECTIVE: To compare three methods of measuring multiple morbidity according to the use of health resources (cost of care) in primary healthcare (PHC). DESIGN: Retrospective study using computerized medical records. SETTING: Thirteen PHC teams in Catalonia (Spain). PARTICIPANTS: Assigned patients requiring care in 2008. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The socio-demographic variables were co-morbidity and costs. Methods of comparison were: a) Combined Comorbidity Index (CCI): an index itself was developed from the scores of acute and chronic episodes, b) Charlson Index (ChI), and c) Adjusted Clinical Groups case-mix: resource use bands (RUB). The cost model was constructed by differentiating between fixed (operational) and variable costs. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: 3 multiple lineal regression models were developed to assess the explanatory power of each measurement of co-morbidity which were compared from the determination coefficient (R(2)), p< .05. RESULTS: The study included 227,235 patients. The mean unit of cost was €654.2. The CCI explained an R(2)=50.4%, the ChI an R(2)=29.2% and BUR an R(2)=39.7% of the variability of the cost. The behaviour of the ICC is acceptable, albeit with low scores (1 to 3 points), showing inconclusive results. CONCLUSIONS: The CCI may be a simple method of predicting PHC costs in routine clinical practice. If confirmed, these results will allow improvements in the comparison of the case-mix.

[Inertia and treatment compliance in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care]. / Inercia y cumplimiento terapéutico en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en atención primaria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Therapeutic inertia (TI) and therapeutic compliance (TC) are 2 important barriers in achieving the therapeutic objectives recommended for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). This study analyzes the TI in patients with DM2 who do not achieve the glycemic, blood pressure (BP) and LDL-cholesterol (c-LDL) control goals, the patients' TC and the relationship between TI and TC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a descriptive study conducted in a Primary Health Care center. We included 320 diabetic patients. Objectives of control were HbA1c ≤ 7%, blood pressure (BP) ≤ 130/80 mm Hg, c-LDL ≤ 100 mg/dl, TI (when the objectives of control were not reached and the professional did not change the treatment) and TC (by counting withdrawals of pharmacy prescriptions). RESULTS: The objectives of control for HbA1c, BP and c-LDL were reached by 66.4, 43.2 and 40.5% of patients, respectively. There was TI in the 86.4% of patients for c-LDL, in 76.7% for BP and in 40.6% for HbA1c. The percentage of therapeutic non-compliance was of 36.1, 37.5 and 32.0% for antidiabetic, antihypertensive and lipid lowering drugs, respectively. Elderly patients were better compliants. TI and TC were not associated. We did not find differences in the level of control, TI, use of drugs and TC by sex. CONCLUSIONS: TI and TC play an important role in the non-consecution of the control objectives in diabetic patients, especially regarding BP and lipids. TC is not related to TI.

¿Qué gasto farmacológico genera un diabético bien controlado? / What are the pharmacological costs of a well-controlled diabetic?

Objetivo: Evaluar el coste del tratamiento farmacológico hipoglucemiante (TFH) de los pacientesdiabéticos atendidos en un centro de atención primaria.Diseño: Estudio descriptivo transversal.Emplazamiento: Centro de Salud urbano.Participantes: Muestra aleatoria de 294 pacientes diabéticos con TFH.Mediciones principales: Variable Principal: coste anual TFH. Variables secundarias: edad, sexo,tipo de DM, médico prescriptor, grado de control de la diabetes, número de fármacos hipoglucemiantes,factores de riesgo cardiovascular y complicaciones.Resultados: Se incluyen 294 diabéticos. Edad media 71,7±13,3 años; 52,7% mujeres; 93,2%DM2; coste total TFH: 82.979 euros/año, (281,9 euros/paciente/año). El médico de familiaoriginaba el 32,3% de los tratamientos (17,7% del gasto). Presentaron un gasto medio anualsignificativamente mayor los pacientes diabéticos tipo 1, los que recibían triple terapia y loscontrolados por endocrinólogo hospitalario. En el estudio de regresión lineal múltiple las variablesque explicaron la variación en el coste fueron el tipo de DM (p<0,0001), origen de laprescripción por endocrinólogo hospitalario (p:0,002), número de fármacos hipoglucemiantes(p<0,001), presencia de retinopatía diabética (p:0,019) y daño renal (p: 0,027).Estas variables explicaron el 44,5% de la variación del coste farmacológico hipoglucemianteanual (R2: 0,445).Conclusiones: Existe gran variabilidad en el gasto originado por el TFH de nuestros pacientesdiabéticos. Es necesaria una mayor coordinación entre todos los profesionales implicados en elmanejo de los pacientes diabéticos, y además la elaboración de guías clínicas y terapéuticascompartidas, conseguiría un control más eficiente de los pacientes diabéticos(AU)

Objective: To evaluate the cost of glucose lowering treatment (GLT) in our diabetic patiients(DP).Design: Cross-sectional descriptive study.Setting: Urban primary health care centre.Participants: Random sample of 294 DP with HPT.Measurements: Principal variable: annual cost of GLT. Secondary Variables: age, sex, type ofdiabetes (DM), prescribing doctor, level of control, number of glucose lowering drugs, cardiovascularrisk factors and complications.Results: A total of 294 diabetic patients were included, with a mean age 71.7+/−13.3 years;52.7% women; 93.2% DM2; Annual cost of GLT: 82.979 euros ,(281.9 euros /patient/year). General practitioner(GP) originated 32.3% of the treatments (17.7% of the costs). Annual average expenditurewas significantly higher in DM1 patients, patients on treatment with triple therapy and patientscontrolled by an endocrinologist in a reference hospital. In the multiple linear regressionthe variables that explained the variation in the cost were the type of Diabetes mellitus(P<0.0001), prescription by hospital endocrinologist (p=0,002), number of glucose loweringdrugs(P<0.0001), diabetic retinopathy(P: 0.019) and chronic renal failure (P: 0.027). Thesevariables explained 44.5% of the annual cost variation of the GLT (R2:0.445).Conclusions: There is a wide variation in the costs arising from GLT of our diabetic patients.We conclude, it is essential to improve coordination between levels of care, encourage thedesign and use of clinical guidelines to achieve more efficient control of our patients(AU)

[What are the pharmacological costs of a well-controlled diabetic?]. / ¿Qué gasto farmacológico genera un diabético bien controlado?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost of glucose lowering treatment (GLT) in our diabetic patients (DP). DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study. SETTING: Urban primary health care centre. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 294 DP with HPT. MEASUREMENTS: Principal variable: annual cost of GLT. Secondary Variables: age, sex, type of diabetes (DM), prescribing doctor, level of control, number of glucose lowering drugs, cardiovascular risk factors and complications. RESULTS: A total of 294 diabetic patients were included, with a mean age 71.7+/-13.3 years; 52.7% women; 93.2% DM2; Annual cost of GLT: 82.979 €,(281.9 €/patient/year). General practitioner (GP) originated 32.3% of the treatments (17.7% of the costs). Annual average expenditure was significantly higher in DM1 patients, patients on treatment with triple therapy and patients controlled by an endocrinologist in a reference hospital. In the multiple linear regression the variables that explained the variation in the cost were the type of Diabetes mellitus (P<0.0001), prescription by hospital endocrinologist (p=0,002), number of glucose lowering drugs(P<0.0001), diabetic retinopathy(P: 0.019) and chronic renal failure (P: 0.027). These variables explained 44.5% of the annual cost variation of the GLT (R(2):0.445). CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in the costs arising from GLT of our diabetic patients. We conclude, it is essential to improve coordination between levels of care, encourage the design and use of clinical guidelines to achieve more efficient control of our patients.

The relationship between effectiveness and costs measured by a risk-adjusted case-mix system: multicentre study of Catalonian population data bases.

BACKGROUND: The main objective of this study is to measure the relationship between morbidity, direct health care costs and the degree of clinical effectiveness (resolution) of health centres and health professionals by the retrospective application of Adjusted Clinical Groups in a Spanish population setting. The secondary objectives are to determine the factors determining inadequate correlations and the opinion of health professionals on these instruments. METHODS/DESIGN: We will carry out a multi-centre, retrospective study using patient records from 15 primary health care centres and population data bases. The main measurements will be: general variables (age and sex, centre, service [family medicine, paediatrics], and medical unit), dependent variables (mean number of visits, episodes and direct costs), co-morbidity (Johns Hopkins University Adjusted Clinical Groups Case-Mix System) and effectiveness.The totality of centres/patients will be considered as the standard for comparison. The efficiency index for visits, tests (laboratory, radiology, others), referrals, pharmaceutical prescriptions and total will be calculated as the ratio: observed variables/variables expected by indirect standardization.The model of cost/patient/year will differentiate fixed/semi-fixed (visits) costs of the variables for each patient attended/year (N = 350,000 inhabitants). The mean relative weights of the cost of care will be obtained. The effectiveness will be measured using a set of 50 indicators of process, efficiency and/or health results, and an adjusted synthetic index will be constructed (method: percentile 50).The correlation between the efficiency (relative-weights) and synthetic (by centre and physician) indices will be established using the coefficient of determination. The opinion/degree of acceptance of physicians (N = 1,000) will be measured using a structured questionnaire including various dimensions. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: multiple regression analysis (procedure: enter), ANCOVA (method: Bonferroni's adjustment) and multilevel analysis will be carried out to correct models. The level of statistical significance will be p < 0.05.