Preventing Chronic Disease | Chronic Condition Self-Management Surveillance: What Is and What Should Be Measured? - CDC

full-text ►

Preventing Chronic Disease | Chronic Condition Self-Management Surveillance: What Is and What Should Be Measured? - CDC

Chronic Condition Self-Management Surveillance: What Is and What Should Be Measured?

Navigate This Article

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Acknowledgments
• Author Information
• References
• Tables

Sarah Ruiz, PhD; Teresa J. Brady, PhD; Russell E. Glasgow, PhD; Richard Birkel, PhD; Michelle Spafford, MPIA

Suggested citation for this article: Ruiz S, Brady TJ, Glasgow RE, Birkel R, Spafford M. Chronic Condition Self-Management Surveillance: What Is and What Should Be Measured? Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:130328. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.130328.

PEER REVIEWED

Abstract

Introduction
The rapid growth in chronic disease prevalence, in particular the prevalence of multiple chronic conditions, poses a significant and increasing burden on the health of Americans. Maximizing the use of proven self-management (SM) strategies is a core goal of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Yet, there is no systematic way to assess how much SM or self-management support (SMS) is occurring in the United States. The purpose of this project was to identify appropriate concepts or measures to incorporate into national SM and SMS surveillance.

Methods
A multistep process was used to identify candidate concepts, assess existing measures, and select high-priority concepts for further development. A stakeholder survey, an environmental scan, subject matter expert feedback, and a stakeholder priority-setting exercise were all used to select the high-priority concepts for development.

Results
The stakeholder survey gathered feedback on 32 candidate concepts; 9 concepts were endorsed by more than 66% of respondents. The environmental scan indicated few existing measures that adequately reflected the candidate concepts, and those that were identified were generally specific to a defined condition and not gathered on a population basis. On the basis of the priority setting exercises and environmental scan, we selected 1 concept from each of 5 levels of behavioral influence for immediate development as an SM or SMS indicator.

Conclusion
The absence of any available measures to assess SM or SMS across the population highlights the need to develop chronic condition SM surveillance that uses national surveys and other data sources to measure national progress in SM and SMS.

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by an award from Sanofi to the National Council on Aging. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institutes of Health.

Top of Page

Author Information

Corresponding Author: Sarah Ruiz, PhD, NORC at the University of Chicago, 4350 East-West Hwy, Bethesda, MD 20814. Telephone: 301-634-9344. E-mail:ruiz-sarah@norc.org.

Author Affiliations: Teresa J. Brady, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Russell E. Glasgow, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; Richard Birkel, National Council on Aging, Washington, DC; Michelle Spafford, NORC at University of Chicago

Top of Page

References

1. Anderson G, Horvath J. The growing burden of chronic disease in America. Public Health Rep 2004;119(3):263–70. CrossRef PubMed
2. Institute of Medicine. Living well with chronic illness: a call for public health action. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2012.
3. Multiple chronic conditions: a strategic framework. US Department of Health and Human Services; December 2010. http://www.hhs.gov/ash/initiatives/mcc/mcc_framework.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2014.
4. Parekh AK, Goodman RA, Gordon C, Koh HK. Managing multiple chronic conditions: a strategic framework for improving health outcomes and quality of life. Public Health Rep 2011;126(4):460–71. PubMed
5. Adams KG, Greiner AC, Corrigan JM, editors. The 1st annual crossing the quality chasm summit: a focus on communities, January 6-7, 2004. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2004.
6. Kania J, Kramer M. Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review 2011;9(1).
7. Barr VJ, Robinson S, Marin-Link B, Underhill L, Dotts A, Ravensdale D, et al. The expanded Chronic Care Model: an integration of concepts and strategies from population health promotion and the Chronic Care Model. Hosp Q 2003;7(1):73–82. PubMed
8. Fisher EB, Brownson CA, O’Toole ML, Shetty G, Anwuri VV, Glasgow RE. Ecological approaches to self-management: the case of diabetes. Am J Public Health 2005;95(9):1523–35. CrossRef PubMed
9. Frieden TR. A framework for public health action: the health impact pyramid. Am J Public Health 2010;100(4):590–5. CrossRef PubMed
10. Koh HK, Brach C, Harris LM, Parchman ML. A Proposed Health Literate Care Model would constitute a systems approach to improving patients’ engagement in care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32(2):357–67. CrossRef PubMed
11. Stewart A. Interpersonal Processes of Care Survey. University of California San Francisco; 2002. http://dgim.ucsf.edu/diversity/englishipc.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2014.
12. Bruce B, Lorig K, Laurent D. Participation in patient self-management programs. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57(5):851–4. CrossRef PubMed
13. Bengoechea EG, Spence J, Fraser S. Alberta Physical Activity Survey. Alberta (CA): The Alberta Centre for Active Living; 2005.
14. Patient activation measure. Insignia Health; 2007. http://www.insigniahealth.com/solutions/patient-activation-measure. Accessed April 24, 2014.
15. How’s Your Health website. http://www.Howsyourhealth.com. Accessed November 12, 2012.
16. Self-efficacy for managing chronic disease 6-item scale. Stanford Patient Education Research Center. http://patienteducation.stanford.edu/research/secd6.html. Accessed April 24, 2014.
17. Cancer demonstration project user guide. The Challenger Group; 2006. http://www.cshealthystart.com/Products/Documents/CS-ACICManual(LowRes).pdf. Accessed April 24, 2014.
18. Assessment of primary care resources and supports for chronic disease self-management. Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis; 2008. http://improveselfmanagement.org/PCRS.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2014.
19. Patient-centered medical home checklist. American Academy of Family Physicians. www.aafp.org/pcmh. Accessed April 24, 2014.
20. Assessment of chronic illness care. Group Health Research Institute; 2004. http://www.improvingchroniccare.org/index.php?p=ACIC_Surveyands=35. Accessed April 24, 2014.
21. Glasgow RE, Whitesides BS, Nelson CC, King DK. Use of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) with diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2005;28(11):2655–61. CrossRef PubMed
22. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. http://www.cdc.gov/brfss. Accessed April 24, 2014.
23. Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. http://cahps.ahrq.gov/about.htm. Accessed April 24, 2014.
24. Health Information National Trends Survey. National Cancer Institute. http://hints.cancer.gov/. Accessed DATE.
25. National Council on Quality Assurance. NCQA patient-centered medical home. http://www.ncqa.org/Portals/0/PCMH%20brochure-web.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2014.
26. Piette JD, Gregor MA, Share D, Heisler M, Berstein SJ, Koelling T, et al. Improving heart failure self-management support by actively engaging out-of-home caregivers: results of a feasibility study. Congest Heart Fail 2008;14(1):12–8. CrossRef PubMed
27. 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;23(6):559–83. CrossRef PubMed
28. Koh HK, Brach C, Harris LM, Parchman ML. A proposed 'health literate care model' would constitute a systems approach to improving patients' engagement in care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32(2):357–67.
29. Glasgow RE, Davis CL, Funnel MM, Beck A. Implementing practical interventions to support chronic illness self-management. Jt Comm J Qual Saf 2003;29(11):563–74. PubMed
30. Glasgow RE, Riley WT. Pragmatic measures: what they are and why we need them. Am J Prev Med 2013;45:237–43. CrossRef PubMed
31. Porter ME. A strategy for health care reform — toward a value-based system. N Engl J Med 2009;361:109–12. CrossRef PubMed