Birinci Basamakta Kronik Hastalık Yönetimi: Türkiye'de Kesitsel Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı, aile hekimleri ve aile sağlığı çalışanlarının kronik hastalık yönetimini değerlendirmek ve Hastalık Yönetim Platformu (HYP) ve bu platformun kullanılabilirliği hakkındaki görüşlerini incelemektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma tanımlayıcı kesitsel tipte bir çalışmadır. Çalışmanın evrenini ülkemizdeki aile sağlığı merkezlerinde (ASM) görev yapan aile hekimleri ve aile sağlığı çalışanları oluşturmaktadır. Sosyodemografik veriler, kronik hastalık yönetimi uygulamaları, HYP ile ilgili sorular, Sistem Kullanılabilirlik Ölçeği (SKS) sorulmuştur. Bulgular: Katılımcıların %19,0’ı HYP sistemini kullanmayı rutin işlerinin bir parçası haline getirebilmektedir. HYP kullanımının önündeki en büyük engelin zaman kaybı olduğunu düşünenlerin oranı %79,4’tü. Biriminde kayıtlı obez, diyabetik ve hipertansif hasta sayısını bilen katılımcıların SKS puanları da anlamlı derecede yüksekti (p<0,05). HPV ve GGK taramalarını yapanların SKS puanları da anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (p<0,05). Sonuç: Koruyucu sağlık hizmetlerinin uygulanmasını ve HYP kullanımını artıracak müdahalelere ihtiyaç vardır. Zaman sorunu büyük ölçüde bir engel olarak bildirildiği için zaman yönetimi konusunda da düzenlemeler gerekmektedir.

Keywords

• Kronik hastalık
• Hastalık yönetimi
• Aile hekimi
• Tarama
• Sistem kullanılabilirliği

Chronic Disease Management in Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Study in Türkiye

Abstract

Objective: The aim of our study was to evaluate the chronic disease management of family physicians and family health workers and to examine their views on the Disease Management Platform (DMP) and the usability of this platform. Material and Methods: This study is a descriptive cross-sectional type of study. The universe of the study consisted of family physicians and family health workers working in family health centers (FHC) in our country. Sociodemographic data, chronic disease management practices, questions about DMP, System Usability Scale (SUS) were asked. Results: Of the participants 19.0% can make using the DMP system a part of their routine work. The percentage of those who thought that the biggest obstacle to the use of the DMP was the waste of time was 79.4%. The SUS scores of the participants who knew the number of obese, diabetic and hypertensive patients registered in their unit were also significantly higher (p<0.05). SUS scores of those who performed HPV and FOBT screenings were also significantly higher (p<0.05). Conclusion: There is a need for interventions that will increase the implementation of preventive health services and the use of DMP. Since the time issue is reported as an obstacle to a large extent, regulations are also required on time management.

Keywords

• Chronic disease
• Disease management
• Family physician
• Screening
• System usability

References

1. van Oostrom SH, Gijsen R, Stirbu I, Korevaar JC, Schellevis FG, Picavet HS, et al. Time trends in prevalence of chronic diseases and multimorbidity not only due to aging: data from general practices and health surveys. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0160264.
2. Anderson E, Durstine JL. Physical activity, exercise, and chronic diseases: A brief review. Sports Med Health Sci. 2019;1(1):3-10.
3. Vodovotz Y, Barnard N, Hu FB, Jakicic J, Lianov L, Loveland D, et al. Prioritized research for the prevention, treatment, and reversal of chronic disease: recommendations from the lifestyle medicine research summit. Front Med. 2020;7:585744.
4. Fragala MS, Shiffman D, Birse CE. Population health screenings for the prevention of chronic disease progression. Am J Manag Care. 2019;25(11):548-553.
5. Arghittu A, Castiglia P, Dettori M. Family medicine and primary healthcare: the past, present and future. Healthcare. 2023;11(15):2128.
6. Nordic Federation of General Practice (NFGP). Core Values and Principles of Nordic General Practice/Family Medicine. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2020;38(4):367-368.
7. Krah NS, Zietzsch P, Salrach C, Toro CA, Ballester M, Orrego C, Groene O. Identifying factors to facilitate the implementation of decision-making tools to promote self-management of chronic diseases into routine healthcare practice: a qualitative study. Healthcare. 2023;11(17):2397.
8. Uysal B, Ulusinan E. Güncel dijital sağlık uygulamalarının incelenmesi. Selçuk Sağlık Dergisi. 2020;1(1):46-60.

9. T.C. Ministry of Health. Hastalık Yönetimi Platformu. Available online: https://hyp.saglik.gov.tr/ (Accessed on 05 September 2023).
10. T.C. Ministry of Health. Available online:https://hsgmdestek.saglik.gov.tr/tr/kronikhastaliklar-haberler/hyp-yayinda.html (Accessed on 05 September 2023).
11. Demirkol D, Şeneler ÇA. Turkish translation of the System Usability Scale: The SUS-TR. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2018;11(3):237-253.
12. Brooke J. SUS - A Quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry. 1996;189(3):189-194.
13. Oruc MA, Arslan S, Bayram N, Ozen O, Ozturk O. The effort to ıncrease cancer screening in family medicine units-Samsun sample. Firat Med J. 2022;27(2):87-91.
14. Crabtree BF, Miller WL, Tallia AF, Cohen DJ, DiCicco-Bloom B, McIlvain H E, et al. Delivery of clinical preventive services in family medicine offices. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(5):430-435.
15. Østbye T, Yarnall KS, Krause KM, Pollak KI, Gradison M, Michener JL. Is there time for management of patients with chronic diseases in primary care? Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):209-214.
16. Potharaju KA, Fields JD, Cemballi AG, Pantell MS, Desai R, Akom A, et al. Assessing alignment of patient and clinician perspectives on community health resources for chronic disease management. Healthcare. 2022;10(10):2006.
17. Mosca L, Linfante AH, Benjamin EJ, Berra K, Hayes SN, Walsh BW, et al. National study of physician awareness and adherence to cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. Circulation. 2005;111(4):499-510.
18. Urbancikova N, Manakova N, Ganna B. Socio-economic and regional factors of digital literacy related to prosperity. Quality Innovation Prosperity. 2017;21(2):124-41.