In spite of the heterogeneity of disease management studies in asthma and COPD care, this review showed promising improvements in quality of life and reductions in hospitalisations, especially for triple intervention programmes.

The outcomes of chronic care management for diabetes are generally positive, yet differ considerably across trials. The most promising results are attained in studies with limited follow-up (<1 year) and by programmes including more than two CCM components. These factors can, however, explain only part of the heterogeneity in effectiveness between studies. Other potential sources of heterogeneity should be investigated to ensure implementation of evidence-based improvements in diabetes care.

Objective. To support decision making on how to best redesign chronic care by studying the heterogeneity in effectiveness across chronic care management evaluations for heart failure. Data Sources. Reviews and primary studies that evaluated chronic care management interventions. Study Design. A systematic review including meta-regression analyses to investigate three potential sources of heterogeneity in effectiveness: study quality, length of followup, and number of chronic care model components. Principal Findings. Our meta-analysis showed that chronic care management reduces mortality by a mean of 18 percent (95 percent CI: 0.72-0.94) and hospitalization by a mean of 18 percent (95 percent CI: 0.76-0.93) and improves quality of life by 7.14 points (95 percent CI: À9.55 to À4.72) on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire. We could not explain the considerable differences in hospitalization and quality of life across the studies. Conclusion. Chronic care management significantly reduces mortality. Positive effects on hospitalization and quality of life were shown, however, with substantial heterogeneity in effectiveness. This heterogeneity is not explained by study quality, length of follow-up, or the number of chronic care model components. More attention to the development and implementation of chronic care management is needed to support informed decision making on how to best redesign chronic care.

Disease management has emerged as a new strategy to enhance quality of care for patients suffering from chronic conditions, and to control healthcare costs. So far, however, the effects of this strategy remain unclear. Although current models define the concept of disease management, they do not provide a systematic development or an explanatory theory of how disease management affects the outcomes of care. The objective of this paper is to present a framework for valid evaluation of disease-management initiatives. The evaluation model is built on two pillars of disease management: patient-related and professional-directed interventions. The effectiveness of these interventions is thought to be affected by the organisational design of the healthcare system. Disease management requires a multifaceted approach; hence disease-management programme evaluations should focus on the effects of multiple interventions, namely patient-related, professional-directed and organisational interventions. The framework has been built upon the conceptualisation of these disease-management interventions. Analysis of the underlying mechanisms of these interventions revealed that learning and behavioural theories support the core assumptions of disease management. The evaluation model can be used to identify the components of disease-management programmes and the mechanisms behind them, making valid comparison feasible. In addition, this model links the programme interventions to indicators that can be used to evaluate the disease-management programme. Consistent use of this framework will enable comparisons among disease-management programmes and outcomes in evaluation research.

No abstract