Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool in patients with asthma, COPD, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and heart failure: A pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study in the Netherlands.
Esther A Boudewijns, Danny Claessens, Onno C P van Schayck, Mascha Twellaar, Bjorn Winkens, Manuela A Joore, Lotte C E M Keijsers, Stijn Krol, Mathijs Urlings, Annerika H M Gidding-Slok
{"title":"Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool in patients with asthma, COPD, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and heart failure: A pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study in the Netherlands.","authors":"Esther A Boudewijns, Danny Claessens, Onno C P van Schayck, Mascha Twellaar, Bjorn Winkens, Manuela A Joore, Lotte C E M Keijsers, Stijn Krol, Mathijs Urlings, Annerika H M Gidding-Slok","doi":"10.1080/13814788.2024.2343364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool was developed to optimise chronic care.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the ABCC-tool in patients with COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and/or heart failure in primary care in the Netherlands.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study had a pragmatic, clustered, two-armed, quasi-experimental design. The intervention group (41 general practices; 176 patients) used the ABCC-tool during routine consultations and the control group (14 general practices; 61 patients) received usual care. The primary outcome was a change in perceived quality of care (PACIC; Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care) after 18 months. Secondary outcomes included change in the PACIC after 6 and 12 months, and in quality of life (EQ-5D-5L; EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICECAP-A; ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), and patients' activation (PAM; Patient Activation Measure) after 6, 12, and 18 months for the total group and conditions separately.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We observed a significant difference in the PACIC after 6, 12, and 18 months (18 months: 0.388 points; 95%CI: 0.089-0.687; <i>p</i> = 0.011) for the total group and after 6 and 12 months for type 2 diabetes. After 18 months, we observed a significant difference in the PAM for the total group but not at 6 and 12 months, and not for type 2 diabetes. All significant effects were in favour of the intervention group. No significant differences were found for the EQ-5D-5L and the ICECAP-A.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Use of the ABCC-tool has a positive effect on perceived quality of care and patients' activation, which makes the tool ready for use in clinical practice. Healthcare providers (e.g. general practitioners and practice nurses) can use the tool to provide person-centred care.<b>Trial registration number:</b> ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383).</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11104697/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2024.2343364","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool was developed to optimise chronic care.
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the ABCC-tool in patients with COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and/or heart failure in primary care in the Netherlands.
Methods: The study had a pragmatic, clustered, two-armed, quasi-experimental design. The intervention group (41 general practices; 176 patients) used the ABCC-tool during routine consultations and the control group (14 general practices; 61 patients) received usual care. The primary outcome was a change in perceived quality of care (PACIC; Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care) after 18 months. Secondary outcomes included change in the PACIC after 6 and 12 months, and in quality of life (EQ-5D-5L; EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICECAP-A; ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), and patients' activation (PAM; Patient Activation Measure) after 6, 12, and 18 months for the total group and conditions separately.
Results: We observed a significant difference in the PACIC after 6, 12, and 18 months (18 months: 0.388 points; 95%CI: 0.089-0.687; p = 0.011) for the total group and after 6 and 12 months for type 2 diabetes. After 18 months, we observed a significant difference in the PAM for the total group but not at 6 and 12 months, and not for type 2 diabetes. All significant effects were in favour of the intervention group. No significant differences were found for the EQ-5D-5L and the ICECAP-A.
Conclusion: Use of the ABCC-tool has a positive effect on perceived quality of care and patients' activation, which makes the tool ready for use in clinical practice. Healthcare providers (e.g. general practitioners and practice nurses) can use the tool to provide person-centred care.Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383).
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
