Questionnaire of chronic illness care in primary care-psychometric properties and test-retest reliability

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Chronic Care Model (CCM) is an evidence-based approach to improving the structure of care for chronically ill patients with multimorbidity. The Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC), an instrument commonly used in international research, includes all aspects of the CCM, but cannot be easily extended to the German context. A new instrument called the "Questionnaire of Chronic Illness Care in Primary Care" (QCPC) was developed for use in Germany for this reason. Here, we present the results of the psychometric properties and test-retest reliability of QCPC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 109 family doctors from different German states participated in the validation study. Participating physicians completed the QCPC, which includes items concerning the CCM and practice structure, at baseline (T0) and 3 weeks later (T1). Internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability were evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and Pearson's r, respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The QCPC contains five elements of the CCM (decision support, delivery system design, self-management support, clinical information systems, and community linkages). All subscales demonstrated moderate internal consistency and moderate test-retest reliability over a three-week interval.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The QCPC is an appropriate instrument to assess the structure of chronic illness care. Unlike the ACIC, the QCPC can be used by health care providers without CCM training. The QCPC can detect the actual state of care as well as areas for improvement of care according to the CCM.</p

Is primary care a neglected piece of the jigsaw in ensuring optimal stroke care? Results of a national study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Stroke is a major cause of mortality and morbidity with potential for improved care and prevention through general practice. A national survey was undertaken to determine current resources and needs for optimal stroke prevention and care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Postal survey of random sample of general practitioners undertaken (N = 204; 46% response). Topics included practice organisation, primary prevention, acute management, secondary prevention, long-term care and rehabilitation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Service organisation for both primary and secondary prevention was poor. Home management of acute stroke patients was used at some stage by 50% of responders, accounting for 7.3% of all stroke patients. Being in a structured cardiovascular management scheme, a training practice, a larger practice, or a practice employing a practice nurse were associated with structures and processes likely to support stroke prevention and care.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>General practices were not fulfilling their potential to provide stroke prevention and long-term management. Systems of structured stroke management in general practice are essential to comprehensive national programmes of stroke care.</p

A cross-sectional evidence-based review of pharmaceutical promotional marketing brochures and their underlying studies: Is what they tell us important and true?

BACKGROUND: A major marketing technique used by pharmaceutical companies is direct-to-physician marketing. This form of marketing frequently employs promotional marketing brochures, based on clinical research, which may influence how a physician prescribes medicines. This study's objective was to investigate whether or not the information in promotional brochures presented to physicians by pharmaceutical representatives is accurate, consistent, and valid with respect to the actual studies upon which the promotional brochures are based. METHODS: Physicians in five clinics were asked to consecutively collect pharmaceutical promotional brochures and to send them all to a centralized location. The brochures for any class of medication were collected on a continuous basis until 20 distinct promotional brochures were received by a central location. Once the brochure was received, the corresponding original study was obtained. Two blinded reviewers performed an evidence-based review of the article, comparing data that was printed on the brochure to what was found in the original study. RESULTS: Among the 20 studies, 75% of the studies were found to be valid, 80% were funded by the pharmaceutical company, 60% of the studies and the corresponding brochures presented patient-oriented outcomes, and 40% were compared to another treatment regimen. Of the 19 brochures that presented the data as graphs, 4 brochures presented a relative risk reduction while only 1 brochure presented an absolute risk reduction. 15% of the promotional marketing brochures presented data that was different from what was in the original published study. CONCLUSION: Given the present findings, physicians should be cautious about drawing conclusions regarding a medication based on the marketing brochures provided by pharmaceutical companies