[Dissatisfaction with the DMP for CHD: An explorative survey among general practitioners on the disease management programs (DMPs) for type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease].

IF 1.7 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Larisa Pilic, Lisa Sommer, Marcus Redaèlli, Kira Molkentin, Beate Sigrid Müller, Stephanie Stock, Stefan Wilm
{"title":"[Dissatisfaction with the DMP for CHD: An explorative survey among general practitioners on the disease management programs (DMPs) for type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease].","authors":"Larisa Pilic, Lisa Sommer, Marcus Redaèlli, Kira Molkentin, Beate Sigrid Müller, Stephanie Stock, Stefan Wilm","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2025.05.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Disease management programs (DMPs) were implemented in 2002 to improve the care for a growing number of chronically ill people in Germany. However, the current state of research on the effectiveness and acceptance of DMPs does not allow valid comparisons between them. The aim of the survey was to compare general practitioners' (GPs') experiences with DMPs for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary heart disease (CHD). The survey complements the results of a qualitative study conducted in 2020.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross-sectional exploratory study using an online survey among GPs in the area of the North Rhine Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in 2023. In addition to general questions on DMPs, the DMPs for T2DM and CHD were compared in regard to three main topics: (1) perceived effectiveness of DMPs, (2) satisfaction with DMPs, and (3) perceived self-management of patients in the DMPs. A total of 42 items were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey was completed by 186 GPs, resulting in a response rate of 10.4%. 96% were practice owners, all of whom had experience in implementing these DMPs. Significant differences were observed in the perceived effectiveness of the two DMPs, e.g. in reducing complications and hospitalizations, with consistently lower ratings for the DMP for CHD. This was also evident in the thematic blocks on satisfaction with DMPs, with regard to enrolment patterns and documentation, as well as patients' self-management in terms of health behaviour and personal responsibility.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Future studies should examine DMPs in GP care separately, given the significant differences in how they are evaluated by GPs. In addition, DMPs should be analysed in more detail regarding effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptance, especially the DMP for CHD.</p>","PeriodicalId":46628,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2025.05.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Disease management programs (DMPs) were implemented in 2002 to improve the care for a growing number of chronically ill people in Germany. However, the current state of research on the effectiveness and acceptance of DMPs does not allow valid comparisons between them. The aim of the survey was to compare general practitioners' (GPs') experiences with DMPs for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary heart disease (CHD). The survey complements the results of a qualitative study conducted in 2020.

Methods: Cross-sectional exploratory study using an online survey among GPs in the area of the North Rhine Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in 2023. In addition to general questions on DMPs, the DMPs for T2DM and CHD were compared in regard to three main topics: (1) perceived effectiveness of DMPs, (2) satisfaction with DMPs, and (3) perceived self-management of patients in the DMPs. A total of 42 items were used.

Results: The survey was completed by 186 GPs, resulting in a response rate of 10.4%. 96% were practice owners, all of whom had experience in implementing these DMPs. Significant differences were observed in the perceived effectiveness of the two DMPs, e.g. in reducing complications and hospitalizations, with consistently lower ratings for the DMP for CHD. This was also evident in the thematic blocks on satisfaction with DMPs, with regard to enrolment patterns and documentation, as well as patients' self-management in terms of health behaviour and personal responsibility.

Conclusion: Future studies should examine DMPs in GP care separately, given the significant differences in how they are evaluated by GPs. In addition, DMPs should be analysed in more detail regarding effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptance, especially the DMP for CHD.

[对冠心病DMP的不满:全科医生对2型糖尿病和冠心病疾病管理方案(DMP)的探索性调查]。
背景:疾病管理计划(dmp)于2002年实施,以改善对德国越来越多的慢性病患者的护理。然而,目前关于dmp的有效性和接受度的研究状况不允许对它们进行有效的比较。该调查的目的是比较全科医生(gp)和dmp治疗2型糖尿病(T2DM)和冠心病(CHD)的经验。该调查补充了2020年进行的一项定性研究的结果。方法:采用横断面探索性研究方法,于2023年对北莱茵地区法定健康保险医师协会全科医生进行在线调查。除了关于dmp的一般问题外,T2DM和CHD的dmp在三个主要主题上进行了比较:(1)dmp的感知有效性,(2)对dmp的满意度,(3)dmp患者的感知自我管理。总共使用了42个项目。结果:共有186名全科医生完成调查,回复率为10.4%。96%是实践业主,他们都有实施这些dmp的经验。在两种DMP的感知有效性方面观察到显著差异,例如在减少并发症和住院方面,DMP治疗冠心病的评分一直较低。这一点也体现在对医疗保健方案的满意度、登记模式和文件以及患者在健康行为和个人责任方面的自我管理方面的专题块中。结论:考虑到全科医生评估dmp的方式存在显著差异,未来的研究应单独检查全科医生护理中的dmp。此外,应更详细地分析DMP的有效性、可行性和可接受性,特别是用于冠心病的DMP。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
129
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信