Chantal Arditi1, Katia Iglesias2,3, Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux1. 1. Health Care Evaluation Unit (UES), Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Lausanne University Hospital, Biopôle 2, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Applied Research and Development Unit, School of Health Sciences Fribourg (HEdS‑FR), University of Applied Sciences and Arts Westrn Switzerland (HES-SO), Route des Cliniques 15, Fribourg, Switzerland. 3. Center for the Understanding of Social Processes University of Neuchâtel, Breguet 1, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was created to assess whether provided care is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, according to patients. We aimed to identify all studies using the PACIC in diabetic patients to explore (i) how overall PACIC scores varied across studies and (ii) whether scores varied according to healthcare delivery, patient and instrument characteristics. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed Central (PMC), from 2005 to 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design using the PACIC in diabetic patients. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted data on healthcare delivery, patient, and instrument characteristics, and overall PACIC score and standard deviation. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions. RESULTS: We identified 34 studies including 25 942 patients from 13 countries, mostly in North America and Europe, using different versions of the PACIC in 11 languages. The overall PACIC score fluctuated between 1.7 and 4.2, with a pooled score of 3.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-3.2, 95% predictive interval 1.9-4.2), with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). The PACIC variance was not explained by healthcare delivery or patient characteristics, but by the number of points on the response scale (5 vs. 11) and the continent (Asia vs. others). CONCLUSION: The PACIC is a widely used instrument, but the direct comparison of PACIC scores between studies should be performed with caution as studies may employ different versions and the influence of cultural norms and language on the PACIC score remains unknown.
PURPOSE: The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was created to assess whether provided care is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, according to patients. We aimed to identify all studies using the PACIC in diabetic patients to explore (i) how overall PACIC scores varied across studies and (ii) whether scores varied according to healthcare delivery, patient and instrument characteristics. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed Central (PMC), from 2005 to 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design using the PACIC in diabetic patients. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted data on healthcare delivery, patient, and instrument characteristics, and overall PACIC score and standard deviation. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions. RESULTS: We identified 34 studies including 25 942 patients from 13 countries, mostly in North America and Europe, using different versions of the PACIC in 11 languages. The overall PACIC score fluctuated between 1.7 and 4.2, with a pooled score of 3.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-3.2, 95% predictive interval 1.9-4.2), with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). The PACIC variance was not explained by healthcare delivery or patient characteristics, but by the number of points on the response scale (5 vs. 11) and the continent (Asia vs. others). CONCLUSION: The PACIC is a widely used instrument, but the direct comparison of PACIC scores between studies should be performed with caution as studies may employ different versions and the influence of cultural norms and language on the PACIC score remains unknown.
Authors: Anja Wollny; Christin Löffler; Eva Drewelow; Attila Altiner; Christian Helbig; Anne Daubmann; Karl Wegscheider; Susanne Löscher; Michael Pentzek; Stefan Wilm; Gregor Feldmeier; Sara Santos Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2021-05-15 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Vera Vennedey; Gloria Dust; Nicolas Schippel; Arim Shukri; Julia Strupp; Christian Rietz; Raymond Voltz; Stephanie Stock Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Omolola A Adeoye-Olatunde; Naomi Pratt; David D Kim; Evan Schmidt; Margie E Snyder Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Viktória Törő; Zsigmond Kósa; Péter Takács; Róbert Széll; Sándorné Radó; Andrea Árokszállási Szelesné; Adrienn Siket Ujváriné; Attila Sárváry Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 2.913
Authors: Ming Tsuey Lim; Yvonne Mei Fong Lim; Xin Rou Teh; Yi Lin Lee; Siti Aminah Ismail; Sheamini Sivasampu Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 2.038