Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"This book charts the new directions in theory and research in disability studies, giving purpose and shape to the emerging confluence of ideas between traditionally opposed groups\"--Provided by publisher.

Almost half of U.S. adults have multiple chronic conditions (MCC), and the prevalence of MCC has significantly increased for racial and/or ethnic minority groups, especially among those aged 45–64 years. Yet, little is known about evidence-based health care models for managing MCC in these populations. The overall objective of this scoping review was to identify the breadth of literature testing health care delivery models or components of models to improve the management of MCC for populations that experience health disparities. The databases of CINAHL Plus, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for original articles from 2016 to 2023. Included studies had to assess a health care delivery model, intervention, approach, or strategy for improving the management of two or more chronic conditions among U.S. adults. Using Covidence, each record was independently assessed by two reviewers and relevant data about the study, health care model, population studied, and outcomes were extracted. Out of 9583 initially screened records, 17 met the inclusion criteria, of which 5 (29%) were randomized controlled trials. Most (82%) studies focused on the management of psychiatric and physical chronic conditions. The most cited care model was the Patient-Centered Medical Home (41%). Most studies (82%) were conducted within clinical settings: primary care ( n  = 9), specialty care ( n  = 4), and behavioral health ( n  = 2). All studies documented positive improvements in patient outcomes, including fourteen (82%) studies that measured outcomes related to service utilization and eleven (65%) studies that measured clinical outcomes. Four studies (24%) measured cost-related outcomes. While the Chronic Care Model was developed almost 30 years ago, the applicable evidence for MCC is sparse for populations experiencing health disparities. There is an opportunity for research to develop, adapt, integrate, and implement evidence-based health care models for MCC to improve clinically significant health outcomes that align with the patient goal needs.

Objectives. To determine whether a community health worker (CHW) intervention improved outcomes in a low-income population with multiple chronic conditions. Methods. We conducted a single-blind, randomized clinical trial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2013–2014). Participants (n = 302) were high-poverty neighborhood residents, uninsured or publicly insured, and diagnosed with 2 or more chronic diseases (diabetes, obesity, tobacco dependence, hypertension). All patients set a disease-management goal. Patients randomly assigned to CHWs also received 6 months of support tailored to their goals and preferences. Results. Support from CHWs (vs goal-setting alone) led to improvements in several chronic diseases (changes in glycosylated hemoglobin: −0.4 vs 0.0; body mass index: −0.3 vs −0.1; cigarettes per day: −5.5 vs −1.3; systolic blood pressure: −1.8 vs −11.2; overall P = .08), self-rated mental health (12-item Short Form survey; 2.3 vs −0.2; P = .008), and quality of care (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems; 62.9% vs 38%; P < .001), while reducing hospitalization at 1 year by 28% (P = .11). There were no differences in patient activation or self-rated physical health. Conclusions. A standardized CHW intervention improved chronic disease control, mental health, quality of care, and hospitalizations and could be a useful population health management tool for health care systems. Trial Registration. clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01900470.

In the United States, over 60% of adults aged 65 years or older have multiple chronic health conditions, with consequences that include reduced quality of life, increasingly complex but less person-centered treatment, and higher health care costs. A previous trial of ElderTree, an eHealth intervention for older adults, found socioemotional benefits for those with high rates of primary care use. This study tested the effectiveness of an ElderTree intervention designed specifically for older patients with multiple chronic conditions to determine whether combining it with primary care improved socioemotional and physical outcomes. In a nonblinded randomized controlled trial, 346 participants recruited from primary care clinics were assigned 1:1 to the ElderTree intervention or an attention control and were followed for 12 months. All participants were aged 65 years or older and had electronic health record diagnoses of at least three of 11 chronic conditions. Primary outcomes were mental and physical quality of life, psychological well-being (feelings of competence, connectedness, meaningfulness, and optimism), and loneliness. Tested mediators of the effects of the study arm (ElderTree vs active control) on changes in primary outcomes over time were 6-month changes in health coping, motivation, feelings of relatedness, depression, and anxiety. Tested moderators were sex, scheduled health care use, and number of chronic conditions. Data sources were surveys at baseline and 6 and 12 months comprising validated scales, and continuously collected ElderTree usage. At 12 months, 76.1% (134/176) of ElderTree participants were still using the intervention. There was a significant effect of ElderTree (vs control) on improvements over 12 months in mental quality of life (arm × timepoint interaction: b=0.76, 95% CI 0.14-1.37; P=.02; 12-month ∆d=0.15) but no such effect on the other primary outcomes of physical quality of life, psychological well-being, or loneliness. Sex moderated the effects of the study arm over time on mental quality of life (b=1.33, 95% CI 0.09-2.58; P=.04) and psychological well-being (b=1.13, 95% CI 0.13-2.12; P=.03), with stronger effects for women than men. The effect of the study arm on mental quality of life was mediated by 6-month improvements in relatedness (α=1.25, P=.04; b=0.31, P<.001). Analyses of secondary and exploratory outcomes showed minimal effects of ElderTree. Consistent with the previous iteration of ElderTree, the current iteration designed for older patients with multiple chronic conditions showed signs of improving socioemotional outcomes but no impact on physical outcomes. This may reflect the choice of chronic conditions for inclusion, which need not have impinged on patients' physical quality of life. Two ongoing trials are testing more specific versions of ElderTree targeting older patients coping with (1) chronic pain and (2) greater debilitation owing to at least 5 chronic conditions. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03387735; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03387735. RR2-10.2196/25175.

My Tools 4 Care (MT4C) is a Web-based intervention that was developed based on the transitions theory. It is an interactive, self-administered, and portable toolkit containing six main sections intended to support carers of community-living persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia and multiple chronic conditions through their transition experiences. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of MT4C with respect to increasing hope, self-efficacy, and health-related quality of life in carers of community-living older persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia and multiple chronic conditions. A multisite, pragmatic, mixed methods, longitudinal, repeated-measures, randomized controlled trial was conducted between June 2015 and April 2017. Eligible participants were randomized into either treatment (MT4C) or educational control groups. Following baseline measures, carers in the treatment group received 3 months of password-protected access to MT4C. Trained research assistants collected data from participants via phone on hope (Herth Hope Index [HHI]), self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale), and health-related quality of life (Short Form-12 item [version 2] health survey; SF-12v2) at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months. The use and cost of health and social services (Health and Social Services Utilization Inventory) among participants were measured at baseline, 3, and 6 months. Analysis of covariance was used to identify group differences at 3 months, and generalized estimating equations were used to identify group differences over time. A total of 199 carers participated in this study, with 101 participants in the treatment group and 98 in the educational control group. Of all, 23% (45/199) participants withdrew during the study for various reasons, including institutionalization or death of the person with dementia and lack of time from the carer. In the treatment group, 73% (74/101) carers used MT4C at least once over the 3-month period. No significant differences in the primary outcome measure (mental component summary score from the SF-12v2) by group or time were noted at 3 months; however, significant differences were evident for HHI-factor 2 (P=.01), with higher hope scores in the treatment group than in the control group. General estimating equations showed no statistically significant group differences in terms of mental component summary score at all time points. Attrition and the fact that not all carers in the treatment group used MT4C may explain the absence of statistically significant results for the main outcome variable. Despite no significant differences between groups in terms of the primary outcome variable (mental component score), the significant differences in terms of one of the hope factors suggest that MT4C had a positive influence on the lives of participants. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02428387; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02428387 (Archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/708oFCR8h).

We need to combine generalist and specialist skills

Medically complex patients are a heterogeneous group that contribute to a substantial proportion of health care costs. Coordinated efforts to improve care and reduce costs for this patient population have had limited success to date. To define distinct patient clinical profiles among the most medically complex patients through clinical interpretation of analytically derived patient clusters. This cohort study analyzed the most medically complex patients within Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large integrated health care delivery system, based on comorbidity score, prior emergency department admissions, and predicted likelihood of hospitalization, from July 18, 2018, to July 15, 2019. From a starting point of over 5000 clinical variables, we used both clinical judgment and analytic methods to reduce to the 97 most informative covariates. Patients were then grouped using 2 methods (latent class analysis, generalized low-rank models, with k-means clustering). Results were interpreted by a panel of clinical stakeholders to define clinically meaningful patient profiles. Complex patient profiles, 1-year health care utilization, and mortality outcomes by profile. The analysis included 104 869 individuals representing 3.3% of the adult population (mean [SD] age, 70.7 [14.5] years; 52.4% women; 39% non-White race/ethnicity). Latent class analysis resulted in a 7-class solution. Stakeholders defined the following complex patient profiles (prevalence): high acuity (9.4%), older patients with cardiovascular complications (15.9%), frail elderly (12.5%), pain management (12.3%), psychiatric illness (12.0%), cancer treatment (7.6%), and less engaged (27%). Patients in these groups had significantly different 1-year mortality rates (ranging from 3.0% for psychiatric illness profile to 23.4% for frail elderly profile; risk ratio, 7.9 [95% CI, 7.1-8.8], P < .001). Repeating the analysis using k-means clustering resulted in qualitatively similar groupings. Each clinical profile suggested a distinct collaborative care strategy to optimize management. The findings suggest that highly medically complex patient populations may be categorized into distinct patient profiles that are amenable to varying strategies for resource allocation and coordinated care interventions.

Background Approximately one-third of all adults worldwide are diagnosed with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). The literature has identified several challenges facing providers and patients coping with managing MCCs in the community, yet few studies have considered their viewpoints in combination. A qualitative study involving healthcare providers and users was thus conducted to examine facilitators and barriers of managing patients with MCCs in the community in Singapore. Methods This study involves 26 semi-structured interviews with 10 physicians, 2 caregivers and 14 patients seeking treatment in the polyclinics that provide subsidised primary care services. Topic guides were developed with reference to the literature review, Chronic Care Model (CCM) and framework for patient-centred access to healthcare. Results Despite the perceived affordability and availability of the support system, some patients still encountered financial difficulties in managing care. These include inadequacy of the nation-wide medical savings scheme to cover outpatient treatment and medications. Half of healthcare users did not know where to seek help. While patients could access comprehensive services in polyclinics, those who did not visit the clinics might not receive timely care. Furthermore, patients reported long consultation waiting time. Physicians were able to propose and drive quality improvement projects to improve care quality. However, there were challenges to delivering safe and quality care with limited consultation duration due to the need to manage high patient load and waiting time, inadequate communication with specialists to coordinate care, and resource constraints in managing complex patients. Although providers could equip patients with self-management and lifestyle-related guidelines, patients’ actions are influenced by multiple factors, including work requirements, beliefs and environment. Conclusions There were barriers on care access, delivery and self-management. It is crucial to adopt a whole-of-society approach involving individuals, community, institutions and policymakers to improve and support MCC management. This study has also highlighted the importance of considering the different viewpoints of healthcare providers and users in policy formulation and community care planning.

Multimorbidity or multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs), the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions within an individual, presents a growing concern for healthcare systems and individuals' well-being. However, we know little about the experiences of those living with MLTCs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as India. We explore how people living with MLTCs describe their illness, their engagements with healthcare services, and challenges they face within primary care settings in Kerala, India. We designed a qualitative descriptive study and conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 31 people (16 males and 15 females) from family health centres (FHCs) in Kerala. Interview data were recorded, transcribed, and thematic analysis using the Framework Method was undertaken. Two main themes and three sub-themes each were identified; (1) Illness impacts on life (a)physical issues (b) psychological difficulties (c) challenges of self-management and (2) Care-coordination maze (a)fragmentation and poor continuity of care (b) medication management; an uphill battle and (c) primary care falling short. All participants reported physical and psychological challenges associated with their MLTCs. Younger participants reported difficulties in their professional lives, while older participants found household activities challenging. Emotional struggles encompassed feelings of hopelessness and fear rooted in concerns about chronic illness and physical limitations. Older participants, adhering to Kerala's familial support norms, often found themselves emotionally distressed by the notion of burdening their children. Challenges in self-management, such as dietary restrictions, medication adherence, and physical activity engagement, were common. The study highlighted difficulties in coordinating care, primarily related to traveling to multiple healthcare facilities, and patients' perceptions of FHCs as fit for diabetes and hypertension management rather than their multiple conditions. Additionally, participants struggled to manage the task of remembering and consistently taking multiple medications, which was compounded by confusion and memory-related issues. This study offers an in-depth view of the experiences of individuals living with MLTCs from Kerala, India. It emphasizes the need for tailored and patient-centred approaches that enhance continuity and coordination of care to manage complex MLTCs in India and similar LMICs.

Background As the population is aging, the number of persons living with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) is expected to increase. This review seeks to answer two research questions from the perspectives of older adults with MCC, their caregivers and their health care providers (HCPs): 1) What are the health and social care needs of community-dwelling older adults with MCC and their caregivers? and 2) How do social and structural determinants of health impact these health and social care needs? Methods We conducted a scoping review guided by a refinement of the Arksey & O’Malley framework. Articles were included if participants were 55 years or older and have at least two chronic conditions. We searched 7 electronic databases. The data were summarized using thematic analysis. Results Thirty-six studies were included in this review: 28 studies included participants with MCC; 12 studies included HCPs; 5 studies included caregivers. The quality of the studies ranged from moderate to good. Five main areas of needs were identified: need for information; coordination of services and supports; preventive, maintenance and restorative strategies; training for older adults, caregivers and HCPs to help manage the older adults’ complex conditions; and the need for person-centred approaches. Structural and social determinants of health such as socioeconomic status, education and access influenced the needs of older adults with MCC. Conclusion The review highlights that most of the needs of older adults with MCC focus on lack of access to information and coordination of care. The main structural and social determinants that influenced older adults’ needs were their level of education/health literacy and their socioeconomic status.