The use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument in diabetes care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Détails
Télécharger: Arditi_PACIC use in diabetes_SR_IJQHC_manuscript.pdf (1218.09 [Ko])
Etat: Public
Version: Author's accepted manuscript
Etat: Public
Version: Author's accepted manuscript
ID Serval
serval:BIB_1D8F183AED72
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Sous-type
Synthèse (review): revue aussi complète que possible des connaissances sur un sujet, rédigée à partir de l'analyse exhaustive des travaux publiés.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
The use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument in diabetes care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Périodique
International journal for quality in health care
ISSN
1464-3677 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1353-4505
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
01/12/2018
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
30
Numéro
10
Pages
743-750
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Meta-Analysis ; Systematic Review
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Résumé
The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was created to assess whether provided care is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, according to patients. We aimed to identify all studies using the PACIC in diabetic patients to explore (i) how overall PACIC scores varied across studies and (ii) whether scores varied according to healthcare delivery, patient and instrument characteristics.
MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed Central (PMC), from 2005 to 2016.
Studies of any design using the PACIC in diabetic patients.
We extracted data on healthcare delivery, patient, and instrument characteristics, and overall PACIC score and standard deviation. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions.
We identified 34 studies including 25 942 patients from 13 countries, mostly in North America and Europe, using different versions of the PACIC in 11 languages. The overall PACIC score fluctuated between 1.7 and 4.2, with a pooled score of 3.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-3.2, 95% predictive interval 1.9-4.2), with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). The PACIC variance was not explained by healthcare delivery or patient characteristics, but by the number of points on the response scale (5 vs. 11) and the continent (Asia vs. others).
The PACIC is a widely used instrument, but the direct comparison of PACIC scores between studies should be performed with caution as studies may employ different versions and the influence of cultural norms and language on the PACIC score remains unknown.
MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed Central (PMC), from 2005 to 2016.
Studies of any design using the PACIC in diabetic patients.
We extracted data on healthcare delivery, patient, and instrument characteristics, and overall PACIC score and standard deviation. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions.
We identified 34 studies including 25 942 patients from 13 countries, mostly in North America and Europe, using different versions of the PACIC in 11 languages. The overall PACIC score fluctuated between 1.7 and 4.2, with a pooled score of 3.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-3.2, 95% predictive interval 1.9-4.2), with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). The PACIC variance was not explained by healthcare delivery or patient characteristics, but by the number of points on the response scale (5 vs. 11) and the continent (Asia vs. others).
The PACIC is a widely used instrument, but the direct comparison of PACIC scores between studies should be performed with caution as studies may employ different versions and the influence of cultural norms and language on the PACIC score remains unknown.
Mots-clé
Chronic Disease/therapy, Diabetes Mellitus/therapy, Health Care Surveys/standards, Humans, Language, Patient Satisfaction, Quality of Health Care
Pubmed
Web of science
Création de la notice
12/05/2018 9:19
Dernière modification de la notice
21/11/2022 8:26