Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A metaevaluation of evaluations of health care programs that employ the chronic care model
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A metaevaluation of evaluations of health care programs that employ the chronic care model
Do you wish to request the book?
A metaevaluation of evaluations of health care programs that employ the chronic care model
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Dissertation
A metaevaluation of evaluations of health care programs that employ the chronic care model
2014
Overview
Background: The purpose of this dissertation is to explore the use of metaevaluation to evaluate the quality of healthcare studies conducted on programs that employ the Chronic Care Model (CCM) to provide chronic illness care. In this study, healthcare studies of CCM programs are regarded as program evaluations. Method: Using a non-experimental cross-sectional design, 28 healthcare studies of CCM programs were evaluated using the accuracy standards portion of the Program Evaluations Metaevaluation Checklist (Stufflebeam, 2011). The results of the metaevaluations were analyzed and compared to the HEAL grade of the same healthcare studies as determined by the Hierarchy of Evidence and Appraisal of Limitations grading system (Gugiu, et al, 2013). Results: When the quality of the 28 healthcare studies were evaluated by metaevaluation, only five (5) studies rated Good. The rest of the studies are rated either Fair (20) or Poor (3). When the quality of the same healthcare studies were assessed by the HEAL grading system, only four (4) studies received an A or A- and only four (4) studies received a B or B-. The rest of the studies received either a C- (2) or a D (18). Also, none of the metaevaluation ratings of the 28 healthcare studies showed a significant relationship with the HEAL scores of the same healthcare studies. Conclusions: Whether rated by the accuracy metaevaluation checklist or graded by the HEAL grading system, the selected CCM studies were mostly of poor to fair quality. This finding raises the level of urgency for improving the study quality of evidence-based medicine. Also, the lack of significant relationship between the two measures of study quality may indicate that the two instruments are complementary rather than substitutionary. If so, it may be better to use both the metaevaluation ratings and the HEAL scores to determine study quality rather than using one instrument over the other.
Publisher
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Subject
ISBN
9781303965005, 1303965003
