4.1 Review

The Effects of Complications and Comorbidities on the Quality of Preventive Diabetes Care: A Literature Review

期刊

POPULATION HEALTH MANAGEMENT
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 217-228

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/pop.2007.0017

关键词

-

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [1R36 HS016219] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although concurrent conditions such as complications and comorbidities are common in people with diabetes, both are often omitted from studies of the quality of diabetes preventive care. This systematic review of the literature on the quality of diabetes preventive care assesses not only trends in the reporting of and adjusting for complications and comorbidities, but also the limitations of current measures of complications and comorbidities. This review identified 34 studies in which the quality of diabetes preventive care was assessed with process measures and complications or comorbidities were reported. More often than not, the studies identified the presence of certain complications or comorbidities, counted complications or comorbidities, or used comorbidity indices to measure morbidity. While earlier studies reported the prevalence of complications or comorbidities, more recent studies use complications or comorbidities as covariates in regression models. Despite this progress, the effects of complications and comorbidities on care processes are unclear because of cross-study variation among measures of complications and comorbidities and because very few studies address the independent effects of complications and comorbidities. Effective measures of complications and comorbidity are necessary to evaluate the quality of diabetes preventive care, particularly for patients with concurrent conditions. Current reported measures of complications and comorbidities may not address constructs related to quality, underscoring the need for a methodology that is better than the approaches now documented in the literature. (Population Health Management. 2008; 11: 217-228)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据