慢性阻塞性肺病的疗效差距:一项混合方法国际比较研究。

Nick Bosanquet, Lucy Dean, Irina Iordachescu, Colm Sheehy
{"title":"慢性阻塞性肺病的疗效差距:一项混合方法国际比较研究。","authors":"Nick Bosanquet, Lucy Dean, Irina Iordachescu, Colm Sheehy","doi":"10.4104/pcrj.2013.00035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been a large increase in treatment and in research on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from the common starting point of the original Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) study. There is currently little evidence on the degree of similarity and difference between national programmes or on the linkage between research and policy.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To review the evidence on programme development and the effectiveness gap from the UK, France, Germany, and Finland.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Visits and literature reviews were undertaken for regional centres in Lancashire, Nord-Pas de Calais, and Finland, and Eurostat data on mortality and hospital discharges were analysed, and telephone interviews in Nord-Rhein Westphalia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There have been very significant differences in programme development from the original GOLD starting point. The UK has national strategies but they are without consistent local delivery. The French Affection de Longue Durée (ALD) programme limits special help to at most 10% of patients and there is little use of spirometry in primary care. Germany has a more general Disease Management Programme with COPD as a late starter. Finland has had a successful 10-year programme. The results for the effectiveness gap on hospital discharges show a major difference between Finland (40.7% fall in discharges) and others (increases of 6.0-43.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results show the need for a simpler programme in primary care to close the effectiveness gap. Such a programme is outlined based on preventing the downward spiral for high-risk patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":48998,"journal":{"name":"Primary Care Respiratory Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6442783/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effectiveness gap in COPD: a mixed methods international comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Nick Bosanquet, Lucy Dean, Irina Iordachescu, Colm Sheehy\",\"doi\":\"10.4104/pcrj.2013.00035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been a large increase in treatment and in research on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from the common starting point of the original Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) study. There is currently little evidence on the degree of similarity and difference between national programmes or on the linkage between research and policy.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To review the evidence on programme development and the effectiveness gap from the UK, France, Germany, and Finland.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Visits and literature reviews were undertaken for regional centres in Lancashire, Nord-Pas de Calais, and Finland, and Eurostat data on mortality and hospital discharges were analysed, and telephone interviews in Nord-Rhein Westphalia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There have been very significant differences in programme development from the original GOLD starting point. The UK has national strategies but they are without consistent local delivery. The French Affection de Longue Durée (ALD) programme limits special help to at most 10% of patients and there is little use of spirometry in primary care. Germany has a more general Disease Management Programme with COPD as a late starter. Finland has had a successful 10-year programme. The results for the effectiveness gap on hospital discharges show a major difference between Finland (40.7% fall in discharges) and others (increases of 6.0-43.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results show the need for a simpler programme in primary care to close the effectiveness gap. Such a programme is outlined based on preventing the downward spiral for high-risk patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48998,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Primary Care Respiratory Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6442783/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Primary Care Respiratory Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary Care Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:从最初的慢性阻塞性肺病全球倡议(GOLD)研究这一共同起点出发,慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)的治疗和研究都有了大幅增长。目前,关于各国计划之间的异同程度或研究与政策之间的联系的证据很少:方法:对兰开夏郡、北加来海峡和芬兰的地区中心进行访问和文献综述,分析欧盟统计局关于死亡率和出院率的数据,并在北莱茵-威斯特法伦州进行电话访谈:结果:与 GOLD 最初的出发点相比,计划的制定存在着非常大的差异。英国制定了国家战略,但没有在当地统一实施。法国的 "长寿之情"(ALD)计划最多只能为 10%的患者提供特殊帮助,而且在初级保健中很少使用肺活量测定法。德国有一个更普遍的疾病管理计划,将慢性阻塞性肺疾病作为后起之秀。芬兰成功实施了一项为期 10 年的计划。出院率的有效性差距结果显示,芬兰(出院率下降40.7%)与其他国家(上升6.0%-43.7%)之间存在很大差异:结论:研究结果表明,有必要在初级保健中开展一项更简单的计划,以缩小效果差距。结论:研究结果表明,有必要在初级医疗保健中开展一项更为简单的计划,以缩小疗效差距。该计划将以预防高危患者病情恶化为基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The effectiveness gap in COPD: a mixed methods international comparative study.

The effectiveness gap in COPD: a mixed methods international comparative study.

Background: There has been a large increase in treatment and in research on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from the common starting point of the original Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) study. There is currently little evidence on the degree of similarity and difference between national programmes or on the linkage between research and policy.

Aims: To review the evidence on programme development and the effectiveness gap from the UK, France, Germany, and Finland.

Methods: Visits and literature reviews were undertaken for regional centres in Lancashire, Nord-Pas de Calais, and Finland, and Eurostat data on mortality and hospital discharges were analysed, and telephone interviews in Nord-Rhein Westphalia.

Results: There have been very significant differences in programme development from the original GOLD starting point. The UK has national strategies but they are without consistent local delivery. The French Affection de Longue Durée (ALD) programme limits special help to at most 10% of patients and there is little use of spirometry in primary care. Germany has a more general Disease Management Programme with COPD as a late starter. Finland has had a successful 10-year programme. The results for the effectiveness gap on hospital discharges show a major difference between Finland (40.7% fall in discharges) and others (increases of 6.0-43.7%).

Conclusions: The results show the need for a simpler programme in primary care to close the effectiveness gap. Such a programme is outlined based on preventing the downward spiral for high-risk patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Primary Care Respiratory Journal
Primary Care Respiratory Journal PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
×
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