Tip 2 Diyabetli Hastalarda Kronik Hastalıklarının Yönetimine Etki Eden Faktörlerin Değerlendirilmesi: Toplum Tabanlı Kesitsel Bir Çalışma

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 114 - 124, 31.08.2024

Bahadır Dede , Erhan Eser

https://doi.org/10.47572/muskutd.1444546

Öz

Çalışmamız Manisa merkez ilçede yaşayan tip 2 diyabetli hastalarda kronik hastalıklarının yönetimlerini etkileyen faktörleri değerlendirmek amaçlanmıştır. Kesitsel tipteki araştırmamıza çok aşamalı, tabakalı rastgele örnekleme yöntemiyle 505 tip 2 diyabetli hasta katılmıştır. Katılımcılara yüz yüze anket uygulanmıştır. Anket literatür taraması ile hazırlanmış yarı yapılandırılmış sorular ve hastaların kronik hastalık bakımlarını kendilerinin değerlendirdiği Patient Assessment of Chronic İllness Care (PACIC) Türkçe ölçeğinden oluşmaktadır. Çok değişkenli çözümlemelerde regresyon analizi uygulanmıştır. Katılımcıların HbA1c düzeyi ortalaması 6.9±1.7 mg/dl’dir. HbA1c’ye göre %61.7'sinin metabolik kontrolü iyi ve sadece %69.5'i evde kendi kendine kan şekeri takiplerini yapmaktadır. Katılımcıların toplam PACIC skor ortalaması 2.59±0.62'dir. Tek değişkenli analiz sonuçlarına göre; kent merkezinde yaşayanların, erkeklerin, 45 yaş altındakilerin, yüksek gelirlilerin, yüksek eğitimlilerin ve evde kendi kendine şeker takibi yapanların, HbA1c, kan lipid düzeyleri kontrol altında olanların, rutin izlemlerini düzenli yaptıranların ve diyabete bağlı sağlık problemi olmayanların toplam PACIC skorları anlamlı olarak daha yüksektir (p<0.05). Çok değişkenli modelde; karar verme becerisinin toplam PACIC skorlarındaki değişimin %52.5'ini, düzenli rutin izlemleri yaptıranların ise %19.0'ını açıkladığı bulunmuştur. Bu, hastaların kendi sağlık yönetimlerinde aktif roller alması ve düzenli sağlık kontrolü yaptırmasının, hasta merkezli bakımın kalitesini önemli ölçüde etkileyebileceğini gösterir. Diyabet eğitiminin nicel ve nitel kalitesinin artırılması, hastaların karar verme becerilerini geliştirmesi kronik hastalık yönetimini kolaylaştırabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

HbA1c, Kronik Bakım Modeli, Kronik Hastalık Bakımının Hasta Değerlendirmesi Ölçeği (PACIC), Metabolik Kontrol, Tip 2 Diyabet

Etik Beyan

This research received ethical approval from Celal Bayar University Faculty of Medicine Non-Invasive Clinical Research Ethics Committee with the decision dated 14.03.2013 and numbered 20478486-64.

Destekleyen Kurum

Celal Bayar University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit provided financial support with the approval of the project number 2013-057.Celal Bayar University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit provided financial support with the approval of the project number 2013-057.

Proje Numarası

2013-057

Teşekkür

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Erhan Eser for his invaluable mentorship, patience, and unwavering support throughout this research project. His profound expertise and insightful feedback have been pivotal to the success of our work, and for that, I am eternally grateful. Additionally, I extend my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Cemil Özcan, Dr. Pınar Erbay Dündar, and Dr. Beyhan Cengiz Özyurt for their guidance and encouragement. Their contributions have not only enriched my academic journey but have also played a crucial role in shaping my educational path.

Assessment of Factors Affecting the Management of Chronic Diseases in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Öz

Our study aimed to evaluate the factors affecting the management of chronic diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes living in Manisa central district. In our cross-sectional study, 505 type 2 diabetic patients participated in a multi-stage, stratified random sampling method. A face-to-face questionnaire was applied to the participants. The questionnaire consisted of semi-structured questions prepared with a literature review and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) Turkish scale in which patients self-assessed their chronic disease care. Regression analysis was applied in multivariate analysis. The mean HbA1c level of the participants was 6.9±1.7 mg/dl. According to HbA1c, 61.7% had good metabolic control and only 69.5% of the participants self-monitored their blood glucose at home. The mean total PACIC score of the participants was 2.59±0.62. According to the results of univariate analysis, the total PACIC scores of those living in urban centers, males, those under the age of 45, those with higher income, those with higher education, those who self-monitor glucose at home, those with controlled HbA1c and blood lipid levels, those who have regular routine follow-ups and those who do not have diabetes-related health problems are significantly higher (p<0.05). In the multivariate model; decision-making ability was found to explain 52.5% of the change in total PACIC scores and 19.0% of those who had regular routine follow-ups. This indicates that patients taking active roles in their own health management and having regular health check-ups can significantly impact the quality of patient-centered care. Increasing the quantitative and qualitative quality of diabetes education and improving patients' decision-making skills can facilitate chronic disease management.

Anahtar Kelimeler

HbA1c, Chronic Care Model, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care Scale (PACIC), Metabolic Control, Type 2 Diabetes

Proje Numarası

2013-057

Kaynakça

• 1. World Health Organization. Noncommunicable diseases progress monitor 2022. Global report, Genava: World Health Organization, 2022. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240047761.
• 2. Magliano DJ, Boyko EJ. International Diabetes Federation. IDF diabetes atlas, 10th edn. Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
• 3. Cho NH, Shaw JE, Karuranga S, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;138:271-1.
• 4. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes-2021 abridged for primary care providers. Clin diabetes. 2021;39(1):14-43.
• 5. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes-2022 abridged for primary care providers. Clin Diabetes. 2022;40(1):10-38.
• 6. Glasgow RE, Wagner EH, Schaefer J, et al. Assessing delivery of the five 'As' for patient-centered counseling. Health Promot Int. 2006;21(3):245-55.
• 7. Glasgow RE, Whitesides H, Nelson CC, et al. Use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) with diabetic patients: relationship to patient characteristics, receipt of care, and self-management. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(11):2655-61.
• 8. İncirkuş K, Nahcivan N. Kronik hastalık bakımını değerlendirme ölçeği-hasta formu'nun Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Deuhyo Ed. 2011;4(1):102-9.
• 9. Türkiye Halk Sağlığı Kurumu Kronik Hastalıklar, Yaşlı Sağlığı ve Özürlüler Daire Başkanlığı. “Türkiye kronik hastalıklar ve risk faktörleri sıklığı çalışması”. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı. Yayın No:909, Ankara, 2013.
• 10. ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, et al. 4. Comprehensive medical evaluation and assessment of comorbidities: standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(S1):S49-67.
• 11. ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, et al. 6. Glycemic targets: standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(S1):S97-110.
• 12. Glasgow RE, Wagner EH, Schaefer J, et al. Development and validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC). Med Care. 2005;43(5):436-44.
• 13. Tan X, Lee LK, Huynh S, et al. Sociodemographic disparities in the management of type 2 diabetes in the United States. Curr Med Res Opin. 2020;36(6):967-6.
• 14. Hill-Briggs F, Adler NE, Berkowitz SA, et al. Social determinants of health and diabetes: a scientific review. Diabetes Care. 2020;44(1):258–79.
• 15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report 2021. Accessed April 25, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics-report/preventing-complications.html.
• 16. Orozco‐Beltrán D, Gil‐Guillen VF, Quirce F, et al. Control of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care. The gap between guidelines and reality in Spain. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2007;61(6):909-15.
• 17. Bruno G, Merletti F, Bargero G, et al. Changes over time in the prevalence and quality of care of type 2 diabetes in Italy: the Casale Monferrato surveys, 1988 and 2000. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2008;18(1):39-45.
• 18. Afroz A, Ali L, Karim MN, et al. Glycaemic control for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bangladesh- An urgent need for optimization of management plan. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):10248.
• 19. Alramadan MJ, Magliano DJ, Almigbal TH, et al. Glycaemic control for people with type 2 diabetes in Saudi Arabia- an urgent need for a review of management plan. BMC Endocr Disord. 2018;18:1-12.
• 20. Sonmez A, Haymana C, Bayram F, et al. Turkish nationwide survey of glycemic and other Metabolic parameters of patients with Diabetes mellitus (TEMD study). Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;146:138-47.
• 21. İlkova H, Damci T, Karsidag K, et al. The International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS)-Turkey's 5(th) Wave Results. Turk J Endocrinol Metab. 2016;20(3).
• 22. Oğuz A, Çaklılı ÖT, Çalık BT. The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study: PURE Turkey. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2018;46(7):613-23.
• 23. Aung E, Donald M, Coll JR, et al. Association between patient activation and patient-assessed quality of care in type 2 diabetes: results of a longitudinal study. Health Expect. 2018;19(2):356-66.
• 24. Simonsen N, Koponen AM, Suominen S. Patients' assessment of chronic illness care: a validation study among patients with type 2 diabetes in Finland. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:1-10.
• 25. Frølich A, Nielsen A, Glümer C, et al. Patients' assessment of care for type 2 diabetes: Results of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care scale in a Danish population. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1-12.
• 26. Aghili R, Valojerdi AE, Farshchi A. Type 2 diabetes: patient assessment of chronic illness care. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2021;20:7-13.
• 27. Arditi C, Iglesias K, Peytremann-Bridevaux I. The use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument in diabetes care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Qual Health Care. 2018;30(10):743-50.
• 28. Balbale SN, Etingen B, Malhiot A, et al. Perceptions of chronic ıllness care among veterans with multiple chronic conditions. Mil Med. 2016;181(5):439-44.
• 29. Stock S, Pitcavage JM, Simic D, et al. Chronic care model strategies in the United States and Germany deliver patient-centered, high-quality diabetes care. Health Aff. 2014;33(9):1540-8.
• 30. Drewes HW, de Jong-van Til JT, Struijs JN, et al. Measuring chronic care management experience of patients with diabetes: PACIC and PACIC+ validation. Int J Integr Care. 2012;12:e194
• 31. Aragones A, Schaefer EW, Stevens D, et al. Validation of the Spanish translation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5(4):A113.
• 32. Glasgow RE, Nutting PA, King DK, et al. Randomized effectiveness trial of a computer-assisted intervention to improve diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(1):33-9.
• 33. Baptista DR, Wiens A, Pontarolo R, et al. The chronic care model for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetology & Met Syndr. 2016;8:1-7.
• 34. Piatt GA, Anderson RM, Brooks MM, et al. 3-year follow-up of clinical and behavioral improvements following a multifaceted diabetes care intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Educ. 2010;36(2):301-9.
• 35. Griffin SJ, Borch-Johnsen K, Davies MJ, et al. Effect of early intensive multifactorial therapy on 5-year cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes detected by screening (ADDITION-Europe): a cluster-randomised trial. The Lancet. 2011;378(9786):156-67.
• 36. Ku GM, Kegels G. Implementing elements of a context-adapted chronic care model to improve first-line diabetes care: effects on assessment of chronic illness care and glycaemic control among people with diabetes enrolled to the First-Line Diabetes Care (FiLDCare) Project in the Northern Philippines. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2015;16(5):481-91.
• 37. Zuercher E, Diatta ID, Burnand B, et al. Health literacy and quality of care of patients with diabetes: A cross-sectional analysis. Prim Care Diabetes. 2017;11(3):233-40.
• 38. Thom DH, Hessler D, Willard-Grace R, et al. Health coaching by medical assistants improves patients' chronic care experience. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(10):685-91.