Currently we observe a gap between theory and practices of patient engagement. If both scholars and health practitioners do agree on the urgency to realize patient engagement, no shared guidelines exist so far to orient clinical practice. Despite a supportive policy context, progress to achieve greater patient engagement is patchy and slow and often concentrated at the level of policy regulation without dialoguing with practitioners from the clinical field as well as patients and families. Though individual clinicians, care teams and health organizations may be interested and deeply committed to engage patients and family members in the medical course, they may lack clarity about how to achieve this goal. This contributes to a wide “system” inertia—really difficult to be overcome—and put at risk any form of innovation in this filed. As a result, patient engagement risk today to be a buzz words, rather than a real guidance for practice. To make the field clearer, we promoted an Italian Consensus Conference on Patient Engagement (ICCPE) in order to set the ground for drafting recommendations for the provision of effective patient engagement interventions. The ICCPE will conclude in June 2017. This document reports on the preliminary phases of this process. In the paper, we advise the importance of “fertilizing a patient engagement ecosystem”: an oversimplifying approach to patient engagement promotion appears the result of a common illusion. Patient “disengagement” is a symptom that needs a more holistic and complex approach to solve its underlined causes. Preliminary principles to promote a patient engagement ecosystem are provided in the paper.

The economic burden of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is a challenge for sustainability. Psychological factors, healthy behaviors, and stressful conditions are predictive and prognostic factors for T2DM. Focusing on psychological factors can reduce costs and help ensure the sustainability of diabetes care. The study aimed to support an integrated medical-psychological approach in the care of patients with T2DM. A group of patients undergoing usual healthcare treatment was compared to patients who received a psychotherapeutic intervention in addition to standard treatment. The study’s outcomes were: physical health (blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin, blood lipids, blood pressure); lifestyle (cigarettes, alcoholic drinks, physical activity, body mass index); mental health (anxiety, depression, stress, coping styles, alexithymia, emotion regulation, locus of control); costs (number of referrals to a specialist, standard cost of each visit). We examined the change from baseline to 24-week follow-up. Compared to the Standard Group, the Integrated Group reported a reduction in blood lipids and triglycerides, chronic depressive and anxious mood states, patient emotional coping, and the number of specialist visits and diagnostic tests. Close collaboration between diabetologists and psychologists is feasible, and it is worth considering integrated care as an option to contain and make healthcare spending more sustainable.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract