Asthma and COPD management of patients with intellectual disabilities in general practice.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Mathilde Mastebroek, Nadeem C M Everlo, Maarten Cuypers, Erik W M A Bischoff, Bianca W M Schalk
{"title":"Asthma and COPD management of patients with intellectual disabilities in general practice.","authors":"Mathilde Mastebroek, Nadeem C M Everlo, Maarten Cuypers, Erik W M A Bischoff, Bianca W M Schalk","doi":"10.1038/s41533-024-00375-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People with intellectual disabilities experience overall poorer health and healthcare access than the general population. It is largely unknown how this applies to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management by general practitioners (GPs). In a 10-year retrospective matched cohort study, n = 34,429, we examined year prevalence of asthma and COPD in adult patients with and without intellectual disabilities and potential differences in the delivery of asthma and COPD disease management activities in Dutch general practices (2010-2019). We collected information on patient characteristics, comorbidity, consultation patterns, use and outcomes of asthma/COPD control questionnaires, spirometry measurement, pulmonology referrals, and prescribed medication. Asthma patients with intellectual disabilities suffered more frequently from obesity (53.2% vs. 39.5% without intellectual disabilities), and both asthma and COPD patients with intellectual disabilities were more frequently current smokers (45.2% vs. 22.1% without intellectual disabilities, and 76.6% vs. 51.4% without intellectual disabilities, respectively). Also, a statistically significant larger number of asthma patients with intellectual disabilities were prescribed antibiotics (69.9% vs. 54.5%). COPD patients with intellectual disabilities, compared with matched controls without intellectual disabilities, received significantly more often either no COPD-related practice consultation at all (respectively 20.8% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.004) or a large number of practice consultations (>31 consultations, respectively 16.7% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.004). For asthma, there was no statistical difference between patients with or without intellectual disabilities regarding the number and type of consultations. The asthma year point prevalence in patients with intellectual disabilities was, from 2014 onward, significantly higher, and in 2019 was 8.7% vs. 6.0% for people without intellectual disabilities. For COPD, it was comparable in both groups. Both asthma and COPD patients with intellectual disabilities appeared considerably younger in age than patients without intellectual disabilities. Our findings warrant further research into the causes of the differences found for asthma and COPD and whether they also infer differences in the quality or the effectiveness of GP disease management, especially for young adults with intellectual disabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":19470,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11208168/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41533-024-00375-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People with intellectual disabilities experience overall poorer health and healthcare access than the general population. It is largely unknown how this applies to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management by general practitioners (GPs). In a 10-year retrospective matched cohort study, n = 34,429, we examined year prevalence of asthma and COPD in adult patients with and without intellectual disabilities and potential differences in the delivery of asthma and COPD disease management activities in Dutch general practices (2010-2019). We collected information on patient characteristics, comorbidity, consultation patterns, use and outcomes of asthma/COPD control questionnaires, spirometry measurement, pulmonology referrals, and prescribed medication. Asthma patients with intellectual disabilities suffered more frequently from obesity (53.2% vs. 39.5% without intellectual disabilities), and both asthma and COPD patients with intellectual disabilities were more frequently current smokers (45.2% vs. 22.1% without intellectual disabilities, and 76.6% vs. 51.4% without intellectual disabilities, respectively). Also, a statistically significant larger number of asthma patients with intellectual disabilities were prescribed antibiotics (69.9% vs. 54.5%). COPD patients with intellectual disabilities, compared with matched controls without intellectual disabilities, received significantly more often either no COPD-related practice consultation at all (respectively 20.8% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.004) or a large number of practice consultations (>31 consultations, respectively 16.7% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.004). For asthma, there was no statistical difference between patients with or without intellectual disabilities regarding the number and type of consultations. The asthma year point prevalence in patients with intellectual disabilities was, from 2014 onward, significantly higher, and in 2019 was 8.7% vs. 6.0% for people without intellectual disabilities. For COPD, it was comparable in both groups. Both asthma and COPD patients with intellectual disabilities appeared considerably younger in age than patients without intellectual disabilities. Our findings warrant further research into the causes of the differences found for asthma and COPD and whether they also infer differences in the quality or the effectiveness of GP disease management, especially for young adults with intellectual disabilities.

Abstract Image

全科医生对智障患者的哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病管理。
与普通人相比,智障人士的健康状况和获得医疗服务的机会总体较差。全科医生(GPs)对哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)的管理情况如何,目前还不得而知。在一项为期 10 年(n = 34,429 人)的回顾性匹配队列研究中,我们调查了智障和非智障成年患者的哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病患病率,以及荷兰全科医生在开展哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病疾病管理活动方面的潜在差异(2010-2019 年)。我们收集了有关患者特征、合并症、就诊模式、哮喘/慢性阻塞性肺病控制问卷的使用和结果、肺活量测量、肺科转诊和处方药的信息。有智力障碍的哮喘病人更经常患有肥胖症(53.2% 比无智力障碍的 39.5%),有智力障碍的哮喘病人和慢性阻塞性肺病病人更经常吸烟(分别为 45.2% 比无智力障碍的 22.1% 和 76.6% 比无智力障碍的 51.4%)。此外,智障哮喘患者服用抗生素的比例也明显高于非智障患者(分别为 69.9% 和 54.5%)。与配对的非智障对照组相比,智障慢性阻塞性肺病患者接受完全不与慢性阻塞性肺病相关的诊治(分别为 20.8% 对 8.5%,P = 0.004)或接受大量诊治(超过 31 次诊治,分别为 16.7% 对 5.3%,P = 0.004)的比例明显更高。就哮喘而言,有智力障碍与无智力障碍的患者在就诊次数和就诊类型方面没有统计学差异。从2014年起,智障患者的哮喘年点患病率明显较高,2019年为8.7%,而非智障患者为6.0%。至于慢性阻塞性肺病,两组患者的发病率相当。智障哮喘患者和慢性阻塞性肺病患者的年龄都比非智障患者小很多。我们的研究结果值得进一步研究哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病的差异原因,以及这些差异是否也推断出全科医生疾病管理的质量或效果存在差异,尤其是对智障的年轻成年人而言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
49
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine is an open access, online-only, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in all areas of the primary care management of respiratory and respiratory-related allergic diseases. Papers published by the journal represent important advances of significance to specialists within the fields of primary care and respiratory medicine. We are particularly interested in receiving papers in relation to the following aspects of respiratory medicine, respiratory-related allergic diseases and tobacco control: epidemiology prevention clinical care service delivery and organisation of healthcare (including implementation science) global health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信