Abstract
Objective: The objective of this project was to determine how to improve evaluation of self-management support (SMS) in Canada to generate high-quality evidence to guide policy-makers, implementers, providers and participants.
Methods: This project used a multi-method approach, including a scoping and a focused literature review, an internet scan, interviews with key stakeholders, a review of existing theoretical evaluation frameworks and a consensus meeting with experts.
Results: Four themes were identified through the collection and analysis of data: 1) diverse SMS interventions are identifiable; 2) emerging evaluation activity in Canada is limited to mostly disease-specific, clinic-based programs; 3) there is little evaluation capacity among program implementers in Canada; and 4) there is a gap between the evidence and expectations.
Conclusion: Policy-makers, community organizations and health care teams, regional health authorities and, most importantly, people living with chronic conditions, need better evidence about how to support self-management in their communities. Measuring outcomes must be an explicit part of program implementation and development and requires coordinated support. A common evaluation framework may provide researchers, practitioners and decision- or policy-makers with a systems approach to understanding the possible structural and process factors that can affect self-management outcomes, and could support capacity building in evaluation.
Key words: Self-care, self-management support, chronic disease, program evaluation
Résumé
Objectif: Déterminer comment améliorer l’évaluation du soutien à l’autogestion des soins (SAS) au Canada afin de produire des preuves de haute qualité pour guider les responsables des politiques, les exécutants, les fournisseurs et les participants au SAS.
Méthode: Nous avons utilisé plusieurs méthodes, dont une étude de champ et une revue de la littérature spécialisée, une exploration d’Internet, des entretiens avec des acteurs privilégiés, un examen des cadres d’évaluation théorique existants et une réunion de concertation avec des spécialistes.
Résultats: Quatre thèmes sont ressortis de la cueillette et de l’analyse des données: 1) diverse interventions en SAS sont identifiables; 2) les activités d’évaluation émergentes au Canada se limitent en gros aux programmes cliniques axés sur certaines maladies; 3) les capacités d’évaluation sont minimes chez les exécutants des programmes au Canada; et 4) il y a un écart entre les preuves et les attentes.
Conclusion: Les responsables des politiques, les organismes communautaires et les équipes de soins de santé, les offices régionaux de la santé et, surtout, les personnes vivant avec des maladies chroniques ont besoin de meilleures preuves sur les moyens de soutenir l’autogestion des soins dans leurs communautés. La mesure des résultats doit faire partie intégrante de l’élaboration et de la mise en œuvre des programmes de SAS, et elle exige un soutien coordonné. Un cadre d’évaluation commun pourrait fournir aux chercheurs, aux praticiens et aux décideurs ou responsables des politiques une approche systémique pour comprendre les facteurs structurels et liés aux processus qui pourraient peser sur les résultats de l’autogestion des soins; un tel cadre pourrait aussi appuyer le renforcement des capacités d’évaluation.
Mots clés: autosoins, soutien à l’autogestion des soins, maladie chronique, évaluation de programme
Footnotes
Sources of support: This work was supported by a grant from the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
References
- 1.Lorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: History, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med. 2003;261:1–7. doi: 10.1207/S15324796ABM2601_01. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Zwar N, Harris M, Griffiths R, Dennis S, Davies GP, Hasan I. A systematic review of chronic disease management. Research Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, School of Public Health and Community Medicine. 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Glasgow RE, Strycker LA, Toobert DJ, Eakin E. A social-ecologic approach to assessing support for disease self-management: The Chronic Illness Resources Survey. J Behav Med. 2000;236:559–83. doi: 10.1023/A:1005507603901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Johnston S, Liddy C, Ives SM, Soto E. Literature Review of Chronic Disease Self-Management. Submitted to the Champlain Local Health Integration Network. 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Borkan J. Immersion/Crystallization. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Wagner EH. Chronic disease management: What will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract. 1998;1:2–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Barr VJ, Robinson S, Marin-Link B, Underhill L, Dotts A, Ravensdale D, Salivaras S. The Expanded Chronic Care Model: An integration of concepts and strategies from population health promotion and the chronic care model. Healthcare Q. 2003;71:73–82. doi: 10.12927/hcq.2003.16763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Fisher EB, Brownson CA, O’Toole ML, Anwuri VV, Shetty G. Perspectives on self-management from the Diabetes Initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Diabetes Educ. 2007;33(S6):216S–224S. doi: 10.1177/0145721707304124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hogg W, Rowan M, Russell G, Geneau R, Muldoon L. Framework for primary care organizations: The importance of a structural domain. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;205:308–13. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.McCurdy B, MacKay C, Badley E, Veinot P, Cott C. A Proposed Evaluation Framework for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management Initiatives in Ontario. 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cusack CM, Byrne C, Hook JM, McGowan J, Poon EG, Zafar A. Health Information Technology Evaluation Toolkit: 2009 Update (Prepared for the AHRQ National Resource Center for Health Information Technology under Contract No. 290-04-0016.) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kaiser Permanente Colorado Region Institute for Health Research. RE-AIM, 2009. Available at: http://www.re-aim.org/ (Accessed May 16, 2011).
- 13.Stanford School of Medicine. Stanford Patient Education Research Center. 2011. Available at: http://patienteducation.stanford.edu/ (Accessed May 16, 2011).
- 14.van den Paterson BL, Hoonaard D, Kealey L, McGibbon C, Mackinnon R, LaChapelle D. Chronic Disease Self-Management Practice in Canada: Patterns, Trends and Programs. 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Gadoury MA, Schwartzman K, Rouleau M, Maltais F, Julien M, Beaupre A, et al. Self-management reduces both short- and long-term hospitalisation in COPD. Eur Respiratory J. 2005;265:853–57. doi: 10.1183/09031936.05.00093204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bourbeau J, Julien M, Maltais F, Rouleau M, Beaupré A, Bégin R, et al. Reduction of hospital utilization in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A disease specific self-management intervention. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:585–91. doi: 10.1001/archinte.163.5.585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Bowman A, Epp D. Rural diabetes education: Does it make a difference? Can J Nurs Res. 2005;371:34–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Sherifali D, Greb JL, Amirthavasar G, Hunt D, Haynes RB, Harper W, et al. Effect of computer-generated tailored feedback on glycemic control in people with diabetes in the community: A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2011;348:1794–98. doi: 10.2337/dc11-0006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Sorting Through the Evidence for the Arthritis Self-Management Program and the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program: Technical Report of ASMP/CDSMP Meta-Analyses. 2011.
- 20.Godwin M, Ruhland L, Casson I, MacDonald S, Delva D, Birtwhistle R, et al. Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: The struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Eldridge S. Pragmatic trials in primary health care: What, when and how? Fam Pract. 2010;276:591–92. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmq099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Ware J, Hamel M. Pragmatic trials - Guides to better patient care? N Engl J Med. 2011;364(18):1685. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1103502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Patton M. Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 24.American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). Program: Peers for Progress. Available at: http://peersforprogress.org (Accessed August 1, 2012).
- 25.Champlain Local Health Integration Network (LHIN). Program: Living Healthy Champlain. Available at: http://www.livinghealthychamplain.ca (Accessed August 1, 2012).