METHODS: Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.
RESULTS: Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.
CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: Demographic and clinical variables were assessed at baseline, after three and six months in 73 type 2 diabetes patients. Regression analysis, using SPSS, evaluated the concurrent and longitudinal association of medication adherence and glycemic control. Potential confounders of variables were identified using bi-variate correlation analyses.
RESULTS: Concurrent Medication adherence and HbA1c association were significant after adjusting for ethnicity (P = 0.005). For longitudinal observation at 3 months, the association was significant after adjusting for ethnicity (P = 0.016); however, it became non-significant when baseline glycemic control was included in the model (P = 0.28).
CONCLUSION: Easy to administer MALMAS significantly predicted concurrent glycemic control independent of potential confounders. This association persisted in longitudinal observation after 3 months when adjusted for confounders and became non-significant after adjusting for baseline glycemic control.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: The web-based Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) platform provides a protocol to guide data collection for issuing a personalized JADE report including risk categories (1-4, low-high), 5-year probabilities of cardiovascular-renal events, and trends and targets of 4 risk factors with tailored decision support. The JADE program is a prospective cohort study implemented in a naturalistic environment where patients underwent nurse-led structured evaluation (blood/urine/eye/feet) in public and private outpatient clinics and diabetes centers in Hong Kong. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 16,624 Han Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes who were enrolled in 2007-2015. In the public setting, the non-JADE group (n = 3,587) underwent structured evaluation for risk factors and complications only, while the JADE (n = 9,601) group received a JADE report with group empowerment by nurses. In a community-based, nurse-led, university-affiliated diabetes center (UDC), the JADE-Personalized (JADE-P) group (n = 3,436) received a JADE report, personalized empowerment, and annual telephone reminder for reevaluation and engagement. The primary composite outcome was time to the first occurrence of cardiovascular-renal diseases, all-site cancer, and/or death, based on hospitalization data censored on 30 June 2017. During 94,311 person-years of follow-up in 2007-2017, 7,779 primary events occurred. Compared with the JADE group (136.22 cases per 1,000 patient-years [95% CI 132.35-140.18]), the non-JADE group had higher (145.32 [95% CI 138.68-152.20]; P = 0.020) while the JADE-P group had lower event rates (70.94 [95% CI 67.12-74.91]; P < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the primary composite outcome were 1.22 (95% CI 1.15-1.30) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.66-0.75), respectively, independent of risk profiles, education levels, drug usage, self-care, and comorbidities at baseline. We reported consistent results in propensity-score-matched analyses and after accounting for loss to follow-up. Potential limitations include its nonrandomized design that precludes causal inference, residual confounding, and participation bias.
CONCLUSIONS: ICT-assisted integrated care was associated with a reduction in clinical events, including death in type 2 diabetes in public and private healthcare settings.