Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool in patients with asthma, COPD, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and heart failure: A pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study in the Netherlands

AbstractBackground The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool was developed to optimise chronic care.Objectives This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the ABCC-tool in patients with COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and/or heart failure in primary care in the Netherlands.Methods The study had a pragmatic, clustered, two-armed, quasi-experimental design. The intervention group (41 general practices; 176 patients) used the ABCC-tool during routine consultations and the control group (14 general practices; 61 patients) received usual care. The primary outcome was a change in... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Esther A. Boudewijns
Danny Claessens
Onno C.P van Schayck
Mascha Twellaar
Bjorn Winkens
Manuela A. Joore
Lotte C. E. M Keijsers
Stijn Krol
Mathijs Urlings
Annerika H. M Gidding-Slok
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2024
Reihe/Periodikum: European Journal of General Practice, Vol 30, Iss 1 (2024)
Verlag/Hrsg.: Taylor & Francis Group
Schlagwörter: Chronic conditions / person-centred care / self-management / shared decision making / general practice / Medicine (General) / R5-920
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-29171364
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2024.2343364

AbstractBackground The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool was developed to optimise chronic care.Objectives This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the ABCC-tool in patients with COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and/or heart failure in primary care in the Netherlands.Methods The study had a pragmatic, clustered, two-armed, quasi-experimental design. The intervention group (41 general practices; 176 patients) used the ABCC-tool during routine consultations and the control group (14 general practices; 61 patients) received usual care. The primary outcome was a change in perceived quality of care (PACIC; Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care) after 18 months. Secondary outcomes included change in the PACIC after 6 and 12 months, and in quality of life (EQ-5D-5L; EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICECAP-A; ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), and patients’ activation (PAM; Patient Activation Measure) after 6, 12, and 18 months for the total group and conditions separately.Results We observed a significant difference in the PACIC after 6, 12, and 18 months (18 months: 0.388 points; 95%CI: 0.089–0.687; p = 0.011) for the total group and after 6 and 12 months for type 2 diabetes. After 18 months, we observed a significant difference in the PAM for the total group but not at 6 and 12 months, and not for type 2 diabetes. All significant effects were in favour of the intervention group. No significant differences were found for the EQ-5D-5L and the ICECAP-A.Conclusion Use of the ABCC-tool has a positive effect on perceived quality of care and patients’ activation, which makes the tool ready for use in clinical practice. Healthcare providers (e.g. general practitioners and practice nurses) can use the tool to provide person-centred care.Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383).