OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the published evidence regarding the characteristics and effectiveness of disease management programmes. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Computerised databases for English language articles during 1987-2001. STUDY SELECTION: 102 articles evaluating 118 disease management programmes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pooled effect sizes calculated with a random effects model. RESULTS: Patient education was the most commonly used intervention (92/118 programmes), followed by education of healthcare providers (47/118) and provider feedback (32/118). Most programmes (70/118) used more than one intervention. Provider education, feedback, and reminders were associated with significant improvements in provider adherence to guidelines (effect sizes (95% confidence intervals) 0.44 (0.19 to 0.68), 0.61 (0.28 to 0.93), and 0.52 (0.35 to 0.69) respectively) and with significant improvements in patient disease control (effect sizes 0.35 (0.19 to 0.51), 0.17 (0.10 to 0.25), and 0.22 (0.1 to 0.37) respectively). Patient education, reminders, and financial incentives were all associated with improvements in patient disease control (effect sizes 0.24 (0.07 to 0.40), 0.27 (0.17 to 0.36), and 0.40 (0.26 to 0.54) respectively). CONCLUSIONS: All studied interventions were associated with improvements in provider adherence to practice guidelines and disease control. The type and number of interventions varied greatly, and future studies should directly compare different types of intervention to find the most effective.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the published evidence regarding the characteristics and effectiveness of disease management programmes. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Computerised databases for English language articles during 1987-2001. STUDY SELECTION: 102 articles evaluating 118 disease management programmes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pooled effect sizes calculated with a random effects model. RESULTS:Patient education was the most commonly used intervention (92/118 programmes), followed by education of healthcare providers (47/118) and provider feedback (32/118). Most programmes (70/118) used more than one intervention. Provider education, feedback, and reminders were associated with significant improvements in provider adherence to guidelines (effect sizes (95% confidence intervals) 0.44 (0.19 to 0.68), 0.61 (0.28 to 0.93), and 0.52 (0.35 to 0.69) respectively) and with significant improvements in patient disease control (effect sizes 0.35 (0.19 to 0.51), 0.17 (0.10 to 0.25), and 0.22 (0.1 to 0.37) respectively). Patient education, reminders, and financial incentives were all associated with improvements in patient disease control (effect sizes 0.24 (0.07 to 0.40), 0.27 (0.17 to 0.36), and 0.40 (0.26 to 0.54) respectively). CONCLUSIONS: All studied interventions were associated with improvements in provider adherence to practice guidelines and disease control. The type and number of interventions varied greatly, and future studies should directly compare different types of intervention to find the most effective.
Authors: K B Wells; C Sherbourne; M Schoenbaum; N Duan; L Meredith; J Unützer; J Miranda; M F Carney; L V Rubenstein Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-01-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: E S Schned; M A Doyle; S L Glickstein; J T Schousboe; J L Reinertsen; A J Baglioni; T F Tolson Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Yi Yvonne Zhou; Robert Unitan; Jian J Wang; Terhilda Garrido; Homer L Chin; Marianne C Turley; Linda Radler Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2010-07-26 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Christina M Bancej; Norm Campbell; Donald W McKay; Marianne Nichol; Robin L Walker; Janusz Kaczorowski Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Julie Schmittdiel; Thomas Bodenheimer; Neil A Solomon; Robin R Gillies; Stephen M Shortell Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.128