Researchers have frequently relied on case identification using clinician-based screening as the standard. This study evaluates a self-administered screening questionnaire developed for use in the Veterans Health Study. We compared concordance between elderly patients' reports of selected chronic illnesses and the medical record. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using a self-report screening questionnaire for case identification in an outcomes study of elderly respondents. Reports of the presence of selected chronic illnesses were compared in a sample of patients (N=402) receiving outpatient care between 2 data sources, patient self-report and medical record, to determine overall concordance in 5 common chronic conditions (hypertension, adult-onset diabetes mellitus, chronic low-back pain, osteoarthritis of the knee, and chronic lung disease). Discordance between the 2 data sources varied by condition. Differences in reporting were small for diabetes and hypertension, intermediate for chronic lung disease, and larger for osteoarthritis of the knee and chronic low-back pain, where the chart did not identify substantial proportions of cases reported in the questionnaire. Use of patient-reported screening questionnaires, which are self-administered, is a valid, cost-efficient method to identify some chronic illnesses. Using medical records alone may result in underestimation of some symptom-based conditions.
Measures of case mix are needed to control for patients' clinical status in studies assessing the process and outcomes of care. The Veterans Health Study (VHS) is a longitudinal study of determinants of health outcomes in ambulatory veterans. This study assessed the validity of a case-mix measure developed to quantify severity of illness in ambulatory type 2 diabetic patients. As part of the pilot phase of the VHS, 245 veterans using 4 primary care clinics in Boston were screened for diabetes and 5 other chronic illnesses when they presented for care. Subjects screening positive for diabetes returned to complete severity of illness and outcome measures. The variables for the diabetes case-mix module were chosen based upon the principles of parsimony, duration of follow-up, and clinical validity and credibility. Variables were selected to predict function, as measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36). The diabetic patients in this study had a heavy burden of chronic illness, with an average of 3.9 comorbid conditions and a mean general health perceptions score of 48 on the SF-36 (scored from 0 to 100, with 100 indicating best health). A summary variable called DMSEV was created for "diabetes severity". This included atherosclerotic complications(stroke, transient ischemic attack or myocardial infarction; chest pain frequency; and claudication), plus any history of eye, foot, or neuropathic symptoms. DMSEV correlated with all 8 outcome scales of the SF-36, and in particular was highly associated with physical function (r=0.49, P=.0001). Least squares linear regression analysis controlling for age and comorbidity confirmed the association of DMSEV with all 8 SF-36 scales. The correlation with physical function remained highly significant (P<.0001), with an R of 0.31. This patient-based self-assessment questionnaire and the summary variable DMSEV appear to be valid measures of severity of illness in ambulatory diabetic veterans with multiple comorbidities. After further testing, this case-mix measure may be suitable for controlling for severity of illness in ambulatory-based studies of diabetic patients with multiple chronic illnesses.
Patients often prefer behaviors other than how their physicians prefer to behave. Preference fit is associated with enhanced patient satisfaction. Physicians should attend to whether patients want religion and other nonmedical aspects of their lives considered. Health plans may wish to provide tools to help patients choose physicians by fit.
This study examined interculturality of Indigenous Mapuche healthcare in Chile's Makewe Hospital. We conducted a descriptive, qualitative, semi-structured, cross-sectional pilot study interviewing key stakeholders, resulting in 11 interviews of patients, Mapuche and occidental providers, public health professionals, administration, and community leaders. We focused on six topics: services and preferences, community participation, interculturality, access to culturally appropriate care, government integration of Indigenous culture and interculturality promotion, and the future of Indigenous care. All groups believed in the need for both kinds of care. However, for community participation, Mapuche indicated no knowledge of interculturality in healthcare, nor any participation, compared with some professionals who believed there was a focus on it. Interculturality expressed by respect for Mapuche ethnomedicine was uniform; however, integration did not appear to Mapuche as effective, whereas professionals and administration interpreted interculturality as a philosophical goal. Regarding culturally appropriate access, Mapuche responses were focused on practical issues, whereas administration and professionals responded by explaining exclusion of Mapuche machi providers as being sensitive to community desires. Government promotion of interculturality was uniformly agreed to be poor. Finally, the future of Indigenous care was seen by Mapuche both optimistically and pessimistically, due to concerns regarding general cultural preservation, whereas professionals emphasized the need to promote preservation. These results indicate a fractionated understanding of definitions and goals among stakeholders. Future policy should focus upon a broader group to implement interculturality, including nongovernmental organizations, academics, and cultural advisors, combined with community-based participatory research, to promote evidence-based, efficient policy efforts and implementation for interculturality in health for the Mapuche.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with đź’™ for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.