Diabetic patients who report receiving processes of diabetic care do not express a better quality of life

Résumé 0

Background: Chronic disease management initiatives emphasize patient-centered care, and quality of life (QoL) is increasingly considered a representative outcome in that context. In this study we evaluated the association between receipt of processes of diabetic care and QoL. Methods: This cross-sectional population-based study (2011) used self-reported data from non-institutionalized, adult diabetics, recruited from randomly selected community pharmacies in Vaud. Outcomes included the physical and mental composites of the SF-36 (PCS, MCS) and the disease-specific Audit of Diabetes-Dependent QoL (ADDQoL). Main exposure variables were receipt of six diabetes processes-of care in the past 12 months. We also evaluated whether the association between care received and QoL was congruent with the chronic care model, when assessed by the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). We used linear regressions to examine the association between process measures and the three composites of health-related QoL. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, socioeconomic status, living companion, BMI, alcohol, smoking, physical activity, co-morbidities and diabetes mellitus (DM) characteristics (type, insulin use, complications, duration). Results: Mean age of the 519 diabetic patients was 64.4 years (SD 11.3), 60% were male and 73% had a living companion; 87% reported type 2 DM, half of respondents required insulin treatment, 48% had at least one DM complication, and 48% had DM over 10 years. Crude overall mean QoL scores were PCS: 43.4 (SD 10.5), MCS: 47.0 (SD 11.2) and ADDQoL: -1.56 (SD 1.6). In bivariate analyses, patients who received the influenza vaccine versus those who did not, had lower ADDQoL and PCS scores; there were no other indicator differences. In adjusted models including all processes, receipt of influenza vaccine was associated with lower ADDQoL (β= - 0.41, p=.01); there were no other associations between process indicators and QoL composites. There was no process association even when these were reported as combined measures of processes of care. PACIC score was associated only with the MCS (β= 1.57, p=.004). Conclusions: Process indicators for diabetes care did not show an association with QoL. This may represent an effect lag time between time of process received and quality of life; or that treatment may be related with inconvenience and patient worry. Further research is needed to explore these unexpected findings.