Chronic disease self-management program: 2-year health status and health care utilization outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the 1- and 2-year health status, health care utilization and self-efficacy outcomes for the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP). The major hypothesis is that during the 2-year period CDSMP participants will experience improvements or less deterioration than expected in health status and reductions in health care utilization. DESIGN: Longitudinal design as follow-up to a randomized trial. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Eight hundred thirty-one participants 40 years and older with heart disease, lung disease, stroke, or arthritis participated in the CDSMP. At 1- and 2-year intervals respectively 82% and 76% of eligible participants completed data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health status (self-rated health, disability, social/role activities limitations, energy/fatigue, and health distress), health care utilization (ER/outpatient visits, times hospitalized, and days in hospital), and perceived self-efficacy were measured. MAIN RESULTS: Compared with baseline for each of the 2 years, ER/outpatient visits and health distress were reduced (P <0.05). Self-efficacy improved (P <0.05). The rate of increase is that which is expected in 1 year. There were no other significant changes. CONCLUSIONS: A low-cost program for promoting health self-management can improve elements of health status while reducing health care costs in populations with diverse chronic diseases.

Self-reports of health care utilization compared to provider records.

This study compares self-reports of medical utilization with provider records. As part of a chronic disease self-management intervention study, patients completed self-reports of their last six months of health care utilization. A subgroup of patients was selected from the larger study and their self-reports of utilization were compared to computerized utilization records. Consistent with earlier studies, patients tended to report less physician utilization than was recorded in the computerized provider records. However, they also tended to report slightly more emergency room visits than were reported in the computerized utilization records. There was no association between demographic or health variables and the tendency toward discrepancy between self-report and computerized utilization record reports. However, there was a tendency for the discrepancy to increase as the amount of record utilization increased. Thus, the likelihood of bias caused by differing demographic factors is low, but researchers should take into account that underreporting occurs and is likely to increase as utilization increases.

Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease.

CONTEXT: For patients with chronic disease, there is growing interest in "self-management" programs that emphasize the patients' central role in managing their illness. A recent randomized clinical trial demonstrated the potential of self-management to improve health status and reduce health care utilization in patients with chronic diseases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of a chronic disease self-management program in a real-world" setting. STUDY DESIGN: Before-after cohort study. PATIENTS AND SETTING: Of the 613 patients from various Kaiser Permanente hospitals and clinics recruited for the study, 489 had complete baseline and follow-up data. INTERVENTION: The Chronic Disease Self-Management Program is a 7-week, small-group intervention attended by people with different chronic conditions. It is taught largely by peer instructors from a highly structured manual. The program is based on self-efficacy theory and emphasizes problem solving, decision making, and confidence building. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health behavior, self-efficacy (confidence in ability to deal with health problems), health status, and health care utilization, assessed at baseline and at 12 months by self-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: At 1 year, participants in the program experienced statistically significant improvements in health behaviors (exercise, cognitive symptom management, and communication with physicians), self-efficacy, and health status (fatigue, shortness of breath, pain, role function, depression, and health distress) and had fewer visits to the emergency department (ED) (0.4 visits in the 6 months prior to baseline, compared with 0.3 in the 6 months prior to follow-up; P = 0.05). There were slightly fewer outpatient visits to physicians and fewer days in hospital, but the differences were not statistically significant. Results were of about the same magnitude as those observed in a previous randomized, controlled trial. Program costs were estimated to be about $200 per participant. CONCLUSIONS: We replicated the results of our previous clinical trial of a chronic disease self-management program in a "real-world" setting. One year after exposure to the program, most patients experienced statistically significant improvements in a variety of health outcomes and had fewer ED visits.

The cost-effectiveness of mind-body medicine interventions.

Evidence is mounting that addressing the psychosocial needs of patients makes economic and health sense. If there were a drug or surgical procedure that could reduce ambulatory care visits, decrease postsurgical length of stay, reduce c-section rates, or decrease death rates from cancer, this medical intervention would be widely accepted and utilized with little hesitation. The beliefs and biases that delay and retard the use of psychosocial interventions need to be challenged (Engel, 1977; Williamson et al., 1991). This brief review of mind-body interventions suggests that health care providers can ill afford to treat patients simply as disordered machines whose health can be restored with physical or chemical interventions alone. Indeed, a burgeoning interest in alternative and complementary medicine with a focus on non-drug, non-surgical interventions as well as the exploding field of lay literature and self-help groups suggests that many patients are ready, willing, and even demanding that mind-body health techniques be considered as part of health care (Friedman et al., 1997). While the health care system cannot be expected to address all the psychosocial needs of people, clinical intervention can be brought into better alignment with the emerging evidence on the health and cost-effectiveness of mind-body interventions. Mind-body medicine is not something separate or peripheral to the main tasks of medical care but should be an integral part of evidence-based, cost-effective, quality health care.

Evidence suggesting that a chronic disease self-management program can improve health status while reducing hospitalization: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effectiveness (changes in health behaviors, health status, and health service utilization) of a self-management program for chronic disease designed for use with a heterogeneous group of chronic disease patients. It also explored the differential effectiveness of the intervention for subjects with specific diseases and comorbidities. METHODS: The study was a six-month randomized, controlled trial at community-based sites comparing treatment subjects with wait-list control subjects. Participants were 952 patients 40 years of age or older with a physician-confirmed diagnosis of heart disease, lung disease, stroke, or arthritis. Health behaviors, health status, and health service utilization, as determined by mailed, self-administered questionnaires, were measured. RESULTS: Treatment subjects, when compared with control subjects, demonstrated improvements at 6 months in weekly minutes of exercise, frequency of cognitive symptom management, communication with physicians, self-reported health, health distress, fatigue, disability, and social/role activities limitations. They also had fewer hospitalizations and days in the hospital. No differences were found in pain/physical discomfort, shortness of breath, or psychological well-being. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention designed specifically to meet the needs of a heterogeneous group of chronic disease patients, including those with comorbid conditions, was feasible and beneficial beyond usual care in terms of improved health behaviors and health status. It also resulted in fewer hospitalizations and days of hospitalization.

Use of and interest in alternative therapies among adult primary care clinicians and adult members in a large health maintenance organization.

During spring 1996, random samples of adult primary care physicians, obstetrics-gynecology physicians and nurse practitioners, and adult members of a large northern California group practice model health maintenance organization (HMO) were surveyed by mail to assess the use of alternative therapies and the extent of interest in having them incorporated into HMO-delivered care. Sixty-one percent (n = 624) of adult primary care physicians, 70% (n = 157) of obstetrics-gynecology clinicians, and 50% (2 surveys, n = 1,507 and n = 17,735) of adult HMO members responded. During the previous 12 months, 25% of adults reported using and nearly 90% of adult primary care physicians and obstetrics-gynecology clinicians reported recommending at least 1 alternative therapy, primarily for pain management. Chiropractic, acupuncture, massage, and behavioral medicine techniques such as meditation and relaxation training were most often cited. Obstetrics-gynecology clinicians used herbal and homeopathic medicines more often than adult primary care physicians, primarily for menopause and premenstrual syndrome. Two thirds of adult primary care physicians and three fourths of obstetrics-gynecology clinicians were at least moderately interested in using alternative therapies with patients, and nearly 70% of young and middle-aged adult and half of senior adult members were interested in having alternative therapies incorporated into their health care. Adult primary care physicians and members were more interested in having the HMO cover manipulative and behavioral medicine therapies than homeopathic or herbal medicines.

Smoking cessation in hospitalized patients. Results of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Few research studies have evaluated the effectiveness of smoking interventions in hospitalized patients. This randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy of 2 smoking cessation programs in patients hospitalized in 4 community hospitals in a large health maintenance organization within the San Francisco Bay Area in California. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to usual care (n = 990), nurse-mediated, behaviorally oriented inpatient counseling focused on relapse prevention with 1 postdischarge telephone contact (minimal intervention, n = 473), or the same inpatient counseling with 4 postdischarge telephone contacts (intensive intervention, n = 561). The main outcome measure, smoking cessation rate, was corroborated by plasma cotinine determination or family confirmation, 1 year after enrollment. RESULTS: At 1 year smoking cessation rates were 27%, 22%, and 20% for intensive intervention, minimal intervention, and usual care groups, respectively (P = .009 for intensive vs usual care). Subgroup analyses by diagnosis revealed that the odds of cessation among patients with cardiovascular disease or other internal medical conditions were greater among those receiving the intensive intervention than among their counterparts receiving usual care (odds ratios, 1.6 and 2.0, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A multicomponent smoking cessation program consisting of physician advice; in-hospital, nurse-mediated counseling; and multiple postdischarge telephone contacts was effective in increasing smoking cessation rates among hospitalized smokers. Hospital-wide smoking cessation programs could substantially increase the effectiveness of hospital smoking bans.

Rethinking medicine: improving health outcomes with cost-effective psychosocial interventions.

Thoughts, feelings, and moods can have a significant effect on the onset of some diseases, the course of many, and the management of nearly all. Many visits to the doctor are occasioned by psychosocial distress. Even in those patients with organic medical disorders, functional health status is strongly influenced by mood, coping skills, and social support, yet the predominant approach in medicine is to treat people with physical and chemical treatments that neglect the mental, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of illness. This critical mismatch between the psychosocial health needs of people and the usual medical response leads to frustration, ineffectiveness, and wasted health care resources. There is emerging evidence that empowering patients and addressing their psychosocial needs can be health and cost effective. By helping patients manage not just their disease but also common underlying needs for psychosocial support, coping skills, and sense of control, health outcomes can be significantly improved in a cost-effective manner. Rather than targeting specific diseases or behavioral risk factors, these psychosocial interventions may operate by influencing underlying, shared determinants of health such as attitudes, beliefs, and moods that predispose toward health in general. Although the health care system cannot be expected to address all the psychosocial needs of people, clinical interventions can be brought into better alignment with the emerging evidence on shared psychosocial determinants of health by providing services that address psychosocial needs and improve adaptation to illness.