Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
which ones work? Meta-analysis of published
reports
Scott R Weingarten a Zynx Health, 9100 Wilshire Boulevard 665E, Beverly
Hills, CA 90212, USA, b TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Lake Forest, IL, USA, c Duke
Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Correspondence to: S Weingarten
sweingarten{at}cerner.com
Objective:
To systematically evaluate the published
evidence regarding the characteristics and effectiveness of disease
management programmes.
What is already known on this topic
A limited number of trials have documented the effectiveness of disease
management in specific situations, but uncertainty remains about its
overall value and which interventions are most effective What this study adds
Programmes using the provider strategies or education, reminders, or
financial incentives for patients improved disease control Further study is needed to assess the relative effectiveness of the
different strategies
Design:
Meta-analysis.
Data sources:
Computerised databases for English
language articles during 1987-2001.
Study selection:
102 articles evaluating 118 disease
management programmes.
Main outcome measures:
Pooled effect sizes calculated
with a random effects model.
Results:
Patient education was the most commonly used intervention (92/118 programmes), followed by education of healthcare providers (47/118) and provider feedback (32/118). Most programmes (70/118) used more than one intervention. Provider education, feedback,
and reminders were associated with significant improvements in provider
adherence to guidelines (effect sizes (95% confidence intervals) 0.44 (0.19 to 0.68), 0.61 (0.28 to 0.93), and 0.52 (0.35 to 0.69)
respectively) and with significant improvements in patient disease
control (effect sizes 0.35 (0.19 to 0.51), 0.17 (0.10 to 0.25), and
0.22 (0.1 to 0.37) respectively). Patient education, reminders, and
financial incentives were all associated with improvements in patient
disease control (effect sizes 0.24 (0.07 to 0.40), 0.27 (0.17 to 0.36),
and 0.40 (0.26 to 0.54) respectively).
Conclusions:
All studied interventions were
associated with improvements in provider adherence to practice
guidelines and disease control. The type and number of interventions
varied greatly, and future studies should directly compare different types of intervention to find the most effective.
Disease management programmes have gained popularity in recent years as
a means of improving the quality and efficiency of care of patients
with chronic diseases
Programmes using education, feedback, or reminders for healthcare
providers produced significant improvements in provider adherence to
care guidelines
Read all Rapid Responses