苏格兰初级医疗数据中哮喘年度复查的流行率和预测因素。

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE BJGP Open Pub Date : 2024-10-02 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0062
Holly Tibble, Alexandria Ming Wai Chung
{"title":"苏格兰初级医疗数据中哮喘年度复查的流行率和预测因素。","authors":"Holly Tibble, Alexandria Ming Wai Chung","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People with asthma are recommended to have regular reviews in primary care, with assessment of symptoms, adjustment of treatment and self-management processes, and the delivery of a written action plan for emergencies.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Our study aimed to investigate the incidence and factors associated with attendance of annual reviews.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>electronic health records for approximately 50 000 Scottish asthma patients, between 2008 and 2016.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Multivariable logistic regression using linked primary care prescription data and primary care registration demographic data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a median of 381 days between subsequent reviews. Reviews in the index year were strongly associated with reviews in the following year (odds ratio 1.76 [1.68-1.84]). In contrast, asthma consultations (excluding reviews) in the index year were associated with a <i>lower</i> odds of having a review in the following year (0.48 [0.46-0.51]). Those aged 18-35 in the index year, or with missing address in the practice registration data, were the least likely age group to have an asthma review in the following year.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reviewing the delivery of asthma care identifies patients who may be slipping through the gaps by receiving only <i>reactive</i> asthma care rather than the structured, preventative care which can be delivered through annual reviews. Understanding the risk factors for not receiving an annual review can be leveraged to create more effective review invitations, such as explaining the specific content of reviews, introducing new contact methods to improve health equity, and reviewing the algorithm used to determine who is invited.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence and predictors of annual asthma reviews in Scottish primary care data.\",\"authors\":\"Holly Tibble, Alexandria Ming Wai Chung\",\"doi\":\"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People with asthma are recommended to have regular reviews in primary care, with assessment of symptoms, adjustment of treatment and self-management processes, and the delivery of a written action plan for emergencies.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Our study aimed to investigate the incidence and factors associated with attendance of annual reviews.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>electronic health records for approximately 50 000 Scottish asthma patients, between 2008 and 2016.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Multivariable logistic regression using linked primary care prescription data and primary care registration demographic data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a median of 381 days between subsequent reviews. Reviews in the index year were strongly associated with reviews in the following year (odds ratio 1.76 [1.68-1.84]). In contrast, asthma consultations (excluding reviews) in the index year were associated with a <i>lower</i> odds of having a review in the following year (0.48 [0.46-0.51]). Those aged 18-35 in the index year, or with missing address in the practice registration data, were the least likely age group to have an asthma review in the following year.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reviewing the delivery of asthma care identifies patients who may be slipping through the gaps by receiving only <i>reactive</i> asthma care rather than the structured, preventative care which can be delivered through annual reviews. Understanding the risk factors for not receiving an annual review can be leveraged to create more effective review invitations, such as explaining the specific content of reviews, introducing new contact methods to improve health equity, and reviewing the algorithm used to determine who is invited.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36541,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJGP Open\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJGP Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:建议哮喘患者定期接受初级保健复查,评估症状、调整治疗和自我管理流程,并提供书面的应急行动计划:方法:使用关联的初级医疗处方数据和初级医疗登记人口统计学数据进行多变量逻辑回归:结果:后续复查的间隔时间中位数为 381 天。指数年的复查与下一年的复查密切相关(几率比1.76 [1.68-1.84])。相比之下,指数年的哮喘咨询(不包括复查)与次年复查的几率较低(0.48 [0.46-0.51])。指数年年龄在18-35岁之间,或在医疗机构登记数据中缺少地址的人群是最不可能在第二年接受哮喘复查的年龄组:通过对哮喘护理服务的审查,可以发现哪些患者可能只接受反应性哮喘护理,而不是通过年度审查提供的结构化预防性护理,从而造成漏诊。了解了未接受年度复查的风险因素后,就可以利用这些因素来发出更有效的复查邀请,例如解释复查的具体内容、引入新的联系方法以提高健康公平性,以及审查用于确定邀请对象的算法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Prevalence and predictors of annual asthma reviews in Scottish primary care data.

Background: People with asthma are recommended to have regular reviews in primary care, with assessment of symptoms, adjustment of treatment and self-management processes, and the delivery of a written action plan for emergencies.

Aim: Our study aimed to investigate the incidence and factors associated with attendance of annual reviews.

Design & setting: electronic health records for approximately 50 000 Scottish asthma patients, between 2008 and 2016.

Method: Multivariable logistic regression using linked primary care prescription data and primary care registration demographic data.

Results: There was a median of 381 days between subsequent reviews. Reviews in the index year were strongly associated with reviews in the following year (odds ratio 1.76 [1.68-1.84]). In contrast, asthma consultations (excluding reviews) in the index year were associated with a lower odds of having a review in the following year (0.48 [0.46-0.51]). Those aged 18-35 in the index year, or with missing address in the practice registration data, were the least likely age group to have an asthma review in the following year.

Conclusion: Reviewing the delivery of asthma care identifies patients who may be slipping through the gaps by receiving only reactive asthma care rather than the structured, preventative care which can be delivered through annual reviews. Understanding the risk factors for not receiving an annual review can be leveraged to create more effective review invitations, such as explaining the specific content of reviews, introducing new contact methods to improve health equity, and reviewing the algorithm used to determine who is invited.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
General practice characteristics associated with pay-for-performance in the UK: a systematic review. How do GPs communicate the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway to patients? A qualitative study of GP-patient consultations. Could a behaviour change intervention be used to address under-recognition of work-related asthma in primary care? A systematic review. Editorial: Global health inequity and primary care. Clinical decision making and risk appraisal using electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) for cancer diagnosis: A qualitative study of GP experiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1