RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Indigenous populations have increased risk of developing diabetes and experience poorer treatment outcomes than the general population. The FORGE AHEAD program partnered with First Nations communities across Canada to improve access to resources by developing community-driven primary healthcare models. METHODS: This was an economic assessment of FORGE AHEAD using a payer perspective. Costs of diabetes management and complications during the 18-month intervention were compared to the costs prior to intervention implementation. Cost-effectiveness of the program assessed incremental differences in cost and number of resources utilization events (pre and post). Primary outcome was all-cause hospitalizations. Secondary outcomes were specialist visits, clinic visits and community resource use. Data were obtained from a diabetes registry and published literature. Costs are expressed in 2023 Can$. RESULTS: Study population was ~ 60.5 years old; 57.2% female; median duration of diabetes of 8 years; 87.5% residing in non-isolated communities; 75% residing in communities < 5000 members. Total cost of implementation was $1,221,413.60 and cost/person $27.89. There was increase in the number and cost of hospitalizations visits from 8/$68,765.85 (pre period) to 243/$2,735,612.37. Specialist visits, clinic visits and community resource use followed this trend. CONCLUSION: Considering the low cost of intervention and increased care access, FORGE AHEAD represents a successful community-driven partnership resulting in improved access to resources.
Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Diabetes Mellitus , Serviços de Saúde do Indígena , Hospitalização , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Humanos , Atenção Primária à Saúde/economia , Feminino , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Hospitalização/economia , Canadá , Serviços de Saúde do Indígena/economia , Diabetes Mellitus/terapia , Atenção à Saúde/economia , Idoso , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Indígenas Norte-Americanos , Povos Indígenas , Adulto , Complicações do Diabetes/terapia , Complicações do Diabetes/economiaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: A significant body of research exists on the impact of the social determinants of health (SDoHs) on diabetes care and general health outcomes. However, less is known about health care practitioners' (HCPs') perspectives and experiences regarding the impact of the SDoHs on their patients with Type I and Type 2 diabetes mellitus and how this affects the prevention and treatment of hypoglycemia. METHOD: A descriptive qualitative study, derived from the InHypo-DM (Canada) research program. A purposive sampling technique was used to recruit participants residing in southwestern Ontario, Canada, for a 30- to 45-min semistructured interview. Individual and team analysis of interviews was conducted to identify overarching and subthemes. Twenty HCP participants, including endocrinologists, family physicians, and allied health care practitioners, were recruited. Seven were Certified Diabetes Educators. RESULTS: Participants articulated 2 overarching components of the SDoHs: patients' socioeconomic issues and psychosocial issues. They highlighted two socioeconomic issues: occupation type and poverty. Participants also emphasized 3 areas pertaining to patients' psychosocial issues: stage in the life cycle (e.g., elderly), social isolation, and mental health. DISCUSSION: This study emphasizes the need for conducting detailed and comprehensive social histories during clinical diabetes assessments, as well as the necessity of adequate clinical time and resources for HCPs and patients to address these issues in the context of hypoglycemia management. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/terapia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/terapia , Hipoglicemia/tratamento farmacológico , Determinantes Sociais da Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/epidemiologia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiologia , Feminino , Disparidades nos Níveis de Saúde , Humanos , Hipoglicemia/epidemiologia , Entrevistas como Assunto , Masculino , Ontário/epidemiologia , Pesquisa QualitativaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The purpose is to examine the responsiveness of the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2), Mark 3 (HUI3), and other generic and disease-specific measures in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Ninety patients (mean age=68.13; SD=8.15) on a waiting list for THA completed measures that included the standard gamble, HUI2, HUI3, SF-36, Harris Hip Scale, WOMAC, and MACTAR. before and after THA. Responsiveness statistics (effect size, standardized response mean, Guyatt's responsiveness statistic, paired-sample t-tests, and relative efficiency statistic) were calculated. RESULTS: The disease-specific measures were more responsive than the generic measures. Rankings of the degree of responsiveness varied depending on the responsiveness statistic used. CONCLUSIONS: Disease-specific measures are the most responsive in THA patients. However, the SF-36, HUI2, and HUI3 had summary scores and domain/attributes scores that were also responsive and provided additional information. Among the generic measures, HUI3 was the most responsive.
Assuntos
Artroplastia de Quadril , Indicadores Básicos de Saúde , Osteoartrite do Quadril/cirurgia , Animais , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Osteoartrite do Quadril/reabilitação , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Do utility scores based on patient preferences and scores based on community preferences agree? The purpose is to assess agreement between directly measured standard gamble (SG) utility scores and utility scores from the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3) systems. METHODS: Patients were assessed repeatedly throughout the process of waiting to see a surgeon, waiting for surgery, and recovery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Group mean scores are compared using paired t-tests. Agreement is assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The mean SG, HUI2, and HUI3 (SD) scores at assessment 1 are 0.62 (0.31), 0.62 (0.19), and 0.52 (0.21); n=103. At assessment 2, the means are 0.67 (0.30), 0.68 (0.30), and 0.58 (0.22); n=84. There are no statistically significant differences between group mean SG and HUI2 scores. Mean SG and HUI3 scores are significantly different. ICCs are low. CONCLUSIONS: At the mean level for the group, SG and HUI2 scores match closely. At the individual level, agreement is poor. HUI2 scores were greater than HUI3 scores. HUI2 and HUI3 are appropriate for group level analyses relying on community preferences but are not a good substitute for directly measured utility scores at the individual level.