Abstract

BackgroundAlthough the population-based German disease management programs (DMPs) for diabetes mellitus (DM) and coronary heart disease (CHD) are among the biggest worldwide, evidence on the effectiveness of these programs is still inconclusive or missing, particularly for high risk patients with comorbidities. The objective of this study was therefore to analyze the impact of DMPs on process and outcome parameters in patients with both, type 2 DM and CHD.MethodsAnalyses are based on two postal surveys of patients from the KORA myocardial infarction registry (southern Germany) with type 2 DM and on two postal validation studies with patients’ general physicians (2006, n = 312 and 2011, n = 212). The association between DMP enrollment (being enrolled in either DMP-DM or DMP-CHD) and guideline care (defined by several process indicators) at baseline (2006) and its development until follow-up (2011) was analyzed using logistic regression models accounting for the repeated measurements structure. The impact of DMP enrollment/guideline care on cumulated (quality-adjusted) life years ((QA)LYs) over a 4-year time horizon (2006–2010) was assessed using multiple linear regression methods. Logistic regression models were applied to analyze the association between DMP status and patient self-management at follow-up.ResultsBeing enrolled in a DMP was associated with better guideline care at baseline [OR = 2.3 (95 % CI 1.27–4.03)], but not at follow-up [OR = 0.80 (95 % CI 0.40–1.58); p value for time-interaction <0.01]. DMP enrollment was not significantly [+0.15 LYs (95 % CI –0.07, 0.37); +0.06 QALYs (95 % CI –0.15, 0.26)], but treatment according to guideline care significantly [+0.40 LYs (95 % CI 0.21–0.60); +0.28 QALYs (95 % CI 0.10–0.45)] associated with higher (quality-adjusted) survival over the 4-year follow-up period. DMP enrollees further reported a somewhat better self-management than patients not being enrolled into a DMP.ConclusionsThe results of this study concerning the effectiveness of DMPs in patients with DM and CHD are mixed, but are weakly in favor of DMPs. However, we found a clear positive impact of guideline care on quality adjusted survival in this patient group. The development of the association between DMP enrollment and guideline care over the follow-up time indicates some external effects, which should be the subject of further investigations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13098-015-0065-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • The population-based German disease management programs (DMPs) for diabetes mellitus (DM) and coronary heart disease (CHD) are among the biggest worldwide, evidence on the effectiveness of these programs is still inconclusive or missing, for high risk patients with comorbidities

  • This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of German DMPs in patients with coexistence of diabetes and CHD using longitudinal follow-up data from a registry-based population

  • We found mixed results for the association between DMP enrollment and patient outcomes in high risk patients, which are weakly in favor of DMPs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The population-based German disease management programs (DMPs) for diabetes mellitus (DM) and coronary heart disease (CHD) are among the biggest worldwide, evidence on the effectiveness of these programs is still inconclusive or missing, for high risk patients with comorbidities. The evidence on the effectiveness of DMPs mainly relies on non-randomized group comparisons based on a limited subset of information from routine claims [17, 18, 21, 22] or population-based survey data [23,24,25,26,27,28] These studies show mixed results on survival and better quality of care for patients enrolled in the respective DMPs. due to the population-based focus of German DMPs, no study has examined the effectiveness of DMPs in terms of process and outcome quality in multi-morbid high risk patients. Patient education is one of the key DMP contents [16, 29, 30], very little is known about the impact of these education programs on patient self-management

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call