Diabetes care: Comparison of patients' and healthcare professionals' assessment using the PACIC instrument

TitreDiabetes care: Comparison of patients' and healthcare professionals' assessment using the PACIC instrument
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2017
AuthorsGijs, E, Zuercher, E, Henry, V, Morin, D, Bize, R, Peytremann-Bridevaux, I
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume23
Issue4
Pagination803-811
Date Published07/2017
DOI10.1111/jep.12720
ISSN1365-2753
Accession NumberPMID:28251768
Mots-clésAged, Attitude of Health Personnel, Chronic Disease, Comorbidity, Diabetes Mellitus/therapy, Educational Status, Evaluation, Female, healthcare, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, patient centered-care, Patient Education as Topic/statistics & numerical data, Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data, Psychometrics, Quality of Health Care/statistics & numerical data, Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data, Self-Management, Surveys and Questionnaires
Abstract

Whereas the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument measures the extent to which care received by patients is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, the 5As model emphasizes self-management and community resources, 2 key components of the Chronic Care Model. We aimed at comparing evaluation of diabetes care, as reported by patients with diabetes and healthcare professionals (HCPs), using these instruments.
Two independent samples, patients with diabetes (n = 395) and HCPs (including primary and secondary care physicians and nurses; n = 287), responded to the 20-item PACIC and the six 5As model questions. The PACIC-5A (questions scored on a 5-point scale, 1 = never to 5 = always) was adapted for HCPs (modified-PACIC-5A). In both samples, means and standard deviations for each question as well as proportions of responses to each response modality were computed, and an overall score was calculated for the 20-item PACIC.
Patients' and HCPs' overall scores were 2.6 (SD 0.9) and 3.6 (SD 0.5), respectively, with HCPs reporting higher scores for all questions except 1. Patients' education and self-management, referral/follow-up and participation in community programs were rated as low by patients and HCPs.
Healthcare professionals, particularly diabetes specialists, tended to report better PACIC scores than patients, suggesting that care was not reported similarly when received or provided. Evaluation differences might be reduced by a closer collaboration between patients and HCPs, as well as the implementation of community-based interventions considering more patients' perspectives such as patients' education and self-management.

Alternate URL

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/jep.12720/asset/jep12720.pdf?v=1&t=j07ry7aj&s=5d8f3aa59e06889295da1cb97918566b53fe1595

First publication date (online)

03/2017

WOS ID (UT)

000406299200017

Short TitleJ Eval Clin Pract
Citation Key / SERVAL ID7552
Peer reviewRefereed
                         

IUMSP | www.iumsp.ch
Institut universitaire de médecine sociale et préventive
Route de la Corniche 10, 1010 Lausanne - Switzerland
+41 21 314 72 72 | iumsp@chuv.ch

Go to top