Background
The CCM and productive interactions – previous research
Study aim
Methods
Context of the study: primary care in the Netherlands
Study design
Participants and inclusion
Intervention and control groups
Intervention: steps in the FFF approach
The FFF approach and the CCM
Data collection and measures
Measuring perceptions of quality of primary care
Measuring productive interactions with the GP and practice nurse
Statistical analyses
Results
Baseline characteristics
Intervention group n = 232 | Control group n = 232 | |
---|---|---|
Age (years) | 82.45 (5.44) | 82.41 (5.16) |
Sex (female) | 168 (72.4%) | 168 (72.4%) |
Marital status (single) | 134 (57.8%) | 160 (69.0%)* |
Educational level (low) | 101 (43.5%) | 91 (39.2%) |
Frailty (score on TFI) | 7.38 (2.40) | 7.38 (2.39) |
Multimorbidity (≥ 2 diseases) | 214 (92.6%) | 206 (89.6%) |
Perceived quality of primary care
Intervention group n = 149b | Control group n = 144c | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Item characteristics of the PACIC-Sa | T0 | T1 | T0 | T1 |
Given choices on treatment to think about | 2.25 (1.36) | 2.89 (1.56)*** | 2.11 (1.39) | 2.99 (1.73)*** |
Satisfied that my care was well organized | 4.22 (1.11) | 4.52 (0.93)** | 4.17 (1.25) | 4.52 (1.04)** |
Helped to set specific goals to improve my eating or exercise | 1.74 (1.09) | 2.57 (1.49)*** | 1.52 (0.99) | 2.27 (1.51)*** |
Given a copy of my treatment plan | 1.44 (1.08) | 1.36 (0.75) | 1.35 (0.94) | 1.49 (1.11) |
Encouraged to go to a specific group/class to help me cope with my (chronic) illness | 1.28 (0.76) | 1.70 (0.76)*** | 1.20 (0.63) | 1.56 (1.04)** |
Asked questions about my health habits | 1.98 (1.30) | 2.34 (1.34)** | 1.74 (1.26) | 2.29 (1.48)*** |
Helped to make a treatment plan that I could do in my daily life | 1.40 (0.89) | 1.85 (1.03)*** | 1.38 (0.91) | 1.66 (0.99)* |
Helped to plan ahead so I could take care of my illness even in hard times | 1.39 (0.85) | 1.91 (1.11)*** | 1.41 (0.94) | 1.66 (0.99)* |
Asked how my (chronic) illness affects my life | 1.53 (1.07) | 1.79 (1.03)* | 1.51 (1.11) | 1.78 (1.15)* |
Contacted after a visit of the GP, nurse or medical specialist to see how things were going | 1.81 (1.27) | 1.81 (1.18) | 1.59 (1.14) | 1.66 (1.13) |
Told how my visits with other (healthcare) professionals helped my treatment | 1.83 (1.29) | 2.81 (1.47)*** | 1.62 (1.13) | 2.73 (1.64)*** |
Mean overall score of the PACIC-Sa | ||||
Perceived quality of primary care | 1.90 (0.56) | 2.32 (0.63)*** | 1.78 (0.54) | 2.24 (0.70)*** |
Perceived productive interactions with the GP and practice nurse
Perceived productive interactionsa |
n
| T0 | T1 |
---|---|---|---|
Intervention group | |||
Productive interaction with the GP | 172 | 3.90 (1.03) | 4.35 (1.01)*** |
Productive interaction with the practice nurse | 172 | 2.84 (1.70) | 3.76 (1.68)*** |
Control group | |||
Productive interaction with the GP | 165 | 3.78 (1.19) | 4.45 (0.86)*** |
Productive interaction with the practice nurse | 164 | 2.45 (1.67) | 3.87 (1.69)*** |
Determinants of productive interactions with the GP and practice nurse
B | SE | |
---|---|---|
Constant | 2.64** | 0.85 |
Intervention group | −0.12 | 0.09 |
Perceived productive interaction with GP T0 | 0.15** | 0.04 |
Perceived quality of primary care T0 | 0.37** | 0.11 |
Change in perceived quality of primary care (T1 – T0) | 0.37*** | 0.07 |
Age | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Sex (female) | −0.18 | 0.11 |
Marital status (single) | 0.08 | 0.10 |
Educational level (low) | 0.02 | 0.10 |
Multimorbidity | −0.23 | 0.18 |
B | SE | |
---|---|---|
Constant | 3.04 | 1.72 |
Intervention group | −0.31 | 0.27 |
Perceived productive interaction with practice nurse T0 | 0.15* | 0.06 |
Perceived quality of primary care T0 | 0.46* | 0.22 |
Change in perceived quality of primary care (T1 – T0) | 0.45** | 0.14 |
Age | 0.001 | 0.02 |
Sex (female) | −0.23 | 0.22 |
Marital status (single) | 0.18 | 0.21 |
Educational level (low) | 0.06 | 0.20 |
Multimorbidity | −0.28 | 0.37 |