PURPOSE This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the V1SAGES case management intervention (Vulnerable Patients in Primary Care: Nurse Case Management and Self-management Support) for frequent users of health care services with chronic disease and complex care needs on psychological distress and patient activation. METHODSWe used a 2-phase sequential mixed methods design. The first phase was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis that measured the effects of the intervention compared with usual care on psychological distress and patient activation before and after 6 months. The second phase had a qualitative descriptive design and entailed thematic analysis of in-depth interviews (25 patients, 6 case management nurses, 9 health managers) and focus groups (8 patients' spouses, 21 family physicians) to understand stakeholders' perceived effects of the intervention on patients. RESULTSA total of 247 patients were randomized into the intervention group (n = 126) or the control group (n = 121). Compared with usual care, the intervention reduced psychological distress (odds ratio = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19-0.95, P = .04), but did not have any significant effect on patient activation (P = .43). Qualitative results suggested that patients and their spouses benefitted from the case management intervention, gaining a sense of security, and stakeholders noted better patient self-management of health.CONCLUSIONS Together, our study's quantitative and qualitative results suggest that case management reduces psychological distress, making patients and caregivers feel more secure, whereas impact on self-management is unclear. Case management is a promising avenue to improve outcomes among frequent users of health care with complex needs. Ann Fam Med 2018;16:232-239. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2233. INTRODUCTIONF requent use of health care services is often driven by the complex health and social care needs of individuals having chronic physical conditions and, often, mental health comorbidities, sometimes accompanied by social vulnerability.1,2 Frequent users with chronic disease and complex care needs often experience fragmented, uncoordinated, and ineffective health care, resulting in poor health outcomes at considerable costs to the health care system. 3 Although high use may be defined from either a frequency or cost perspective, the former is more convenient and easier to measure when identifying this population in a pragmatic context. Given that primary care is a first point of contact with the health and social care system, it may play a strong role in allowing the implementation of innovations to provide more coordinated care. 4 Different interventions have been developed and evaluated to improve care for frequent users of health care services, such as case management, individualized care plans, self-management support, and information sharing. 5 Case management is the intervention most supported by evidence on improving appropriate use of health care resources, decreasing undue C...

No abstract

This study aimed to (1) identify generic questionnaires that measure self-management in people with chronic conditions, (2) describe their characteristics, (3) describe their development and theoretical foundations, and (4) identify categories of self-management strategies they assessed. This scoping review was based on the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley and completed by Levac et al. A thematic analysis was used to examine self-management strategies assessed by the questionnaires published between 1976 and 2019. A total of 21 articles on 10 generic, self-reported questionnaires were identified. The questionnaires were developed using various theoretical foundations. The Patient Assessment of Self-Management Tasks and Partners in Health scale questionnaires possessed characteristics that made them suitable for use in clinical and research settings and for evaluating all categories of self-management strategies. This study provides clinicians and researchers with an overview of generic, self-reported questionnaires and highlights some of their practical characteristics.

No abstract

Introduction:Valid and comprehensive instruments to measure integrated care are required to capture patient experience and improve quality of patient care. This study aimed to validate the Patient Experience of Integrated Care Scale (PEICS), among patients with chronic conditions seen in primary care.Methods:One hundred and fifty-nine (159) French-speaking adults with at least one chronic condition were recruited in two family medicine clinics in Quebec (Canada) and completed the 17-item PEICS (T1). Fifty (50) participants completed it a second time 2 weeks later (T2). The internal consistency of the scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, the test-retest reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and concurrent validity using three dimensions of the Continuity of Care from Multiple Clinicians (CC-MC), with Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients.Results:Cronbach’s alpha for the questionnaire was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.91). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.64 to 0.90) and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient with the three dimensions of the CC-MC varied from 0.44 to 0.54.Conclusions and discussion:The PEICS showed good psychometric properties. This scale could be used in a population with chronic conditions followed in primary care to measure patient experience of integrated care.