RESUMEN
Objectives: To categorize and examine the effectiveness regarding health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mental health, and mortality of care models for persons with multimorbidity in primary care, community care, and hospitals through a systematic review. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to May 2020. One author screened titles and abstracts, and to validate, a second author screened 5% of the studies. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the tool by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group. Study inclusion criteria were (1) participants aged ≥ 18 years with multimorbidity; (2) referred to multimorbidity or two or more specific chronic conditions in the title or abstract; (3) randomized controlled design; and (4) HRQoL, mental health, or mortality as primary outcome measures. We used the Foundation Framework to categorize the models and the PRISMA-guideline for reporting. Results: In this study, the first to report effectiveness of care models in patients with multimorbidity in hospital settings, we included 30 studies and 9,777 participants with multimorbidity. 12 studies were located in primary care, 9 in community care, and 9 in hospitals. HRQoL was reported as the primary outcome in 12 studies, mental health in 17 studies, and mortality in three studies-with significant improvements in 5, 14, and 2, respectively. The studies are presented according to settings. Conclusions: Although 20 of the care models reported positive effects, the variations in populations, settings, model elements, and outcome measures made it difficult to conclude on which models and model elements were effective.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) scale is the most appropriate for assessing self-reported experience in chronic care. We aimed to validate the PACIC questionnaire by (1) assess patients' perception of the quality of care for Danish patients with type 2 diabetes, (2) identify which factors are most important to the quality of care designated by the five subscales in PACIC, and (3) the validity of the questionnaire. METHODS: A survey of 7,745 individuals randomly selected from the National Diabetes Registry. Descriptive statistics inter-item and item-rest correlations and factor analysis assessed the PACIC properties. Quality of care was analysed with descriptive statistics; linear and multiple regression assessed the effect of forty-nine covariates on total and subscale scores. RESULTS: In total, 2,696 individuals with type 2 diabetes completed ≥ 50 % of items. The floor effect for individual items was 8.5-74.5 %; the ceiling effect was 4.1-47.8 %. Cronbach's alpha was 0.73-0.86 for the five subscales. The comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) were 0,87, and 0,84, respectively. Mean PACIC score was 2.44 (± 0.04). Respondents, who receive diabetes care primarily at general practice and outpatient clinics had higher scores compared to those receiving care at a private specialist. Receiving rehabilitation was followed by higher scores in all subscales. Those 70 years or older had lower mean total and subscale scores compared to younger patient groups. A higher number of diabetes visits were associated with higher total scores; a higher number of emergency department visits were associated with lower total scores. The effects of healthcare utilisation on subscale scores varied. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide insight into variations in the quality of provided care and can be used for targeting initiatives towards improving diabetes care. Factors important to the quality of perceived care are having a GP or hospital outpatient clinic as the primary organization. Also having a higher number of visits to the two organizations are perceived as higher quality of care as well as participating in a rehabilitation program. Floor and ceiling effects were comparable to an evaluation of the PACIC questionnaire in a Danish population. Yet, floor effects suggest a need for further evaluation and possible improvement of the PACIC questionnaire in a Danish setting. Total PACIC scores were lower than in other healthcare systems, possible being a result of different contexts and cultures, and of a need for improving diabetes care in Denmark.