Local, collaborative, stepped, and personalized care management for older people with chronic diseases - results from the randomized controlled LoChro-trial.

BACKGROUND: In the aging population of Western societies, an increasing number of older adults have multiple chronic diseases. As multifaceted health problems imply the involvement of several healthcare professionals, multimorbid older people frequently face a fragmentation of health care. Addressing these challenges, we developed a local, collaborative, stepped, and personalized care management approach (LoChro-Care) and evaluated its effectiveness. METHODS: A two-group, parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing LoChro-Care recipients (IG) to participants with usual care (CG). Patients aged 65 + with chronic conditions were recruited at inpatient and outpatient departments of the Medical Center, University of Freiburg. Participants were allocated using block randomization (nIG = 261, nCG = 263). LoChro-Care comprised individualized care provided by chronic care managers with 7 to 13 contacts over 12 months. Questionnaires were given at 3 time points (T0: baseline, T1: after 12 months, T2: after 18 months). The primary outcome was the physical, psychological, and social health status represented by a composite score of functional health and depressive symptoms. Secondary outcomes were the participants' evaluation of their health care situation, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and life-satisfaction (LS). The data were analyzed using linear mixed modelling. RESULTS: We analyzed N = 491 participants (nIG = 244, nCG = 247), aged M = 76.78 years (SD = 6.35). For the composite endpoint, neither a significant difference between IG and CG (p = .88) nor a group-time interaction (p = .52; p = .88) could be observed. Participants in both groups showed a significant decline on the primary outcome between T0 and T2 (p < .001). Post hoc analyses revealed a decline in both functional health (p < .001) and depressive symptoms (p = .02). Both groups did not differ in their evaluation of their health care situation (p = .93), HRQL (p = .44) or LS (p = .32). Relevant confounding variables were female gender and multimorbidity. CONCLUSION: Supporting patients' self-management in coordinating their individual care network through LoChro-Care did not result in any significant effect on the primary and secondary outcomes. A decline of functional health and depressive symptoms was observed among all participants. Potential future intervention adaptations are discussed, such as a more active case management through direct referral to (in-)formal support, an earlier treatment initiation, and the consideration of specific sociodemographic factors in care management planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00013904 (02.02.2018), https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00013904.

[Systems thinking, subjective findings and diagnostic "pigeonholing" in ME/CFS: A mainly qualitative public health study from a patient perspective]. / Systemisches Denken, subjektive Befunde und das diagnostische "Schubladendenken" bei ME/CFS ­ Eine vorwiegend qualitative Public-Health-Studie aus Patientensicht.

BACKGROUND: ME/CFS (Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) is an illness that is predominantly viewed as a neuroimmunological multisystem disease, which is still unknown to many doctors in Germany or which they classify as a psychosomatic disease. From their perspective, ME/CFS patients report significant deficits in terms of medical treatment and a doctor-patient relationship (DP relationship) that is perceived as problematic. The aim of the present study is to more precisely analyse the process of finding a diagnosis as an influencing factor on the DP relationship in ME/CFS from the point of view of those affected. METHOD: As part of an explorative qualitative survey, 544 ME/CFS patients (> 20 years; 455 ♀, 89 ♂) with a medical diagnosis of ME/CFS were asked in writing about their experiences with regard to the process of finding a diagnosis. The sampling was previously done by self-activation and via the snowball principle. The questionnaire to be answered was structured analogously to a focused, standardized guideline interview. The evaluation was carried out as part of a qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Some of the results were subsequently quantified. RESULTS: The participants described what they saw as the inadequate process of making a diagnosis as a central factor in a problematic DP relationship in ME/CFS. From their point of view, many doctors deny the existence of ME/CFS or classify it as a solely psychosomatic illness, insist on their level of knowledge, ignore patient knowledge and disregard scientific information provided. They follow the standard program, think in "pigeonholes" and are incapable of systemic thinking. This has a significant impact on the DP relationship. DISCUSSION: From the point of view of ME/CFS patients, the process of making a diagnosis and the recognition of ME/CFS as a neuroimmunological multisystem disease are the central aspects of a DP relationship that they experience as problematic. In the past, findings classified as "subjective" and thus ignored, the pigeonholing that is characteristic of biomedically oriented medicine and a healthcare system that opposes systemic thinking when making a diagnosis have all been identified as factors that may have a significant impact on the DP relationship.