NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Task Force on Community Preventive Services. The Guide to Community Preventive Services. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1999-.

  • This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Cover of The Guide to Community Preventive Services

The Guide to Community Preventive Services.

Show details

The Effectiveness of Disease and Case Management for People with Diabetes

, MD, MPH, , MPH, , PhD, MPH, , PhD, , MD, MSc, , PhD, MSc, , MD, , PhD, , PhD, , PhD, , MD, and , MD.

Author Information

, MD, MPH, , MPH, , PhD, MPH, , PhD, , MD, MSc, , PhD, MSc, , MD, , PhD, , PhD, , PhD, , MD, and , MD.*

From the Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (Norris, Nichols, Caspersen, Engelau, Jack), and Epidemiology Program Office (Snyder, Carande-Kulis, Briss), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; AMC Cancer Research Center (Glasgow), Denver, Colorado; HealthPartners (Isham), Minneapolis, Minnesota; Diabetes Program Branch, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health (Garfield), Bethesda, Maryland; and Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound (McCulloch), Seattle, Washington
*Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Susan L. Norris, MD, MPH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MS K-10, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Atlanta, GA 30341. E-mail: Scn5@cdc.gov.

Published: May 2002.

Overview: This report presents the results of a systematic review of the effectiveness and economic efficiency of disease management and case management for people with diabetes and forms the basis for recommendations by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services on the use of these two interventions. Evidence supports the effectiveness of disease management on glycemic control; on screening for diabetic retinopathy, foot lesions and peripheral neuropathy, and proteinuria; and on the monitoring of lipid concentrations. This evidence is applicable to adults with diabetes in managed care organizations and community clinics in the United States and Europe. Case management is effective in improving both glycemic control and provider monitoring of glycemic control. This evidence is applicable primarily in the U.S. managed care setting for adults with type 2 diabetes. Case management is effective both when delivered in conjunction with disease management and when delivered with one or more additional educational, reminder, or support interventions.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): community health services, diabetes mellitus, evidencebased medicine, preventive health services, public health practice, review literature (Am J Prev Med 2002;22(4S):15-38) (c) 2002 American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (diabetes) is a prevalent, costly condition that causes significant morbidity and mortality. In the United States, 15.7 million people (5.9% of the total population) have diabetes, of whom 5.4 million are undiagnosed. 1 In 1997 alone, 789,000 new cases were diagnosed. 1 Moreover, according to death certificate data, diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. 1 Mortality is primarily related to heart disease: adults with diabetes have death rates from heart disease about 2 to 4 times higher than those without diabetes. 1 In addition, the risk of stroke is 2 to 4 times higher in people with diabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of new cases of blindness in adults aged 20 to 74 years, and it is also the leading cause of end-stage renal disease, accounting for about 40% of new cases. Neuropathy is also a major problem, as 60% to 70% of people with diabetes have this condition, and more than half of lower limb amputations occur among people with diabetes. Finally, the rate of pregnancies resulting in death of the newborn is twice as high among women with diabetes than among those without this disorder. 1 Consistent with its extraordinary effect on the health of Americans, the costs of diabetes to the U.S. healthcare system are enormous: total (direct and indirect) costs were estimated at $98 billion in 1997. 2 Selby et al. 3 calculated that per-person expenditures for members of a managed care organization with diabetes were 2.4 times higher than for those without diabetes. Thirtyeight percent of the total excess costs was spent on treating long-term complications, particularly coronary heart disease.

Traditionally, healthcare delivery involves individual providers reacting to patient-initiated complaints and visits. Care is frequently fragmented, disorganized, duplicative, and focused on managing established disease and complications. Providers practice what they have been taught and what their anecdotal experiences have led them to believe is effective. The goals are generally short term, such as pain control or avoidance of hospital admission. Management is provider-directed and focuses on pharmacologic and technologic interventions, with little attention to patient self-management behaviors or provider-patient interactions. 4 Traditional methods of healthcare delivery do not adequately address the needs of individual people or populations with diabetes. For example, in a survey of the care received by patients of primary care providers, people with diabetes were receiving only 64% to 74% of the services recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Provider Recognition Program. 5 And in a chart audit covering 1 year in a health maintenance organization (HMO) setting, glycated hemoglobin (GHb) a values were documented for only 44% of people with diabetes (ADA recommends two to four measurements per year), and annual urine protein measurements were performed on only 48% of patients. 6 Available evidence shows that improving care for people with diabetes results in cost savings for healthcare organizations. In a review of economic analyses of interventions for diabetes, eye care and preconception care were found to be cost saving, and preventing neuropathy in type 1 b diabetes and improving glycemic control with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes were found to be clearly cost-effective. 7 Gilmer et al. 8 modeled cost savings at an HMO and found that every percentage point increase in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) above normal was associated with a significant increase in costs over the next 3 years. Testa et al. 9 noted that improved glycemic control was associated with shortterm decreases in healthcare utilization, increased productivity, and enhanced quality of life. Wagner et al. 10 found that a sustained reduction in HbA1c was associated with cost savings among adults with diabetes within 1 to 2 years of improved glycemic control.

In the last decade, innovative interventions for healthcare delivery have emerged that show promise for improving care, outcomes, and costs for individuals and populations with diabetes. Disease and case management are two such new interventions. This review examines the extent and quality of the evidence of their effectiveness when applied to people with diabetes.

The Guide to Community Preventive Services

The systematic reviews in this report represent the work of the independent, nonfederal Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force). The Task Force is developing the Guide to Community Preventive Services (the Community Guide) with the support of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and in collaboration with public and private partners. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides staff support to the Task Force to develop the Community Guide. A special supplement to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, "Introducing the Guide to Community Preventive Services: Methods, First Recommendations and Expert Commentary," published in January 2000, 11 presents the background and the methods used to develop the Community Guide. Evidence reviews and recommendations have been published previously on vaccine-preventable diseases, 12 , 13 , 14 tobacco use prevention and control, 15 16 17 and motor vehicle occupant injury. 18 19 The Community Guide addresses many of the diabetesrelated objectives of Healthy People 2010, the prevention agenda for the United States. 20 Objectives 5-11 through 5-15 relate to improving screening for complications involving the kidney, retina, extremities, and the oral cavity and monitoring of glycemic control. 20 By implementing interventions shown to be effective, healthcare providers and administrators can help their organizations achieve these goals while using resources efficiently. This report, in combination with the accompanying recommendations, 21 provides information on interventions that can help communities and healthcare systems reach Healthy People 2010 objectives.

Methods

The Community Guide's methods for conducting systematic reviews and linking evidence to effectiveness are described elsewhere. 22 23 In brief, for each Community Guide topic, a systematic review development team representing diverse disciplines, backgrounds, and work settings conducts a review by

  • developing an approach to identifying, organizing, grouping, and selecting interventions for review;
  • developing an analytic framework depicting interrelationships between interventions, populations, and outcomes;
  • systematically searching for and retrieving evidence;
  • assessing and summarizing the quality and strength of the body of evidence of effectiveness;
  • translating evidence of effectiveness into recommendations;
  • summarizing data about applicability, economic and other effects, and barriers to implementation; and
  • identifying and summarizing research gaps.

The diabetes systematic review development team (see author list) generated a comprehensive list of strategies and created a priority list of interventions for review based on the (1) importance of the intervention in decreasing morbidity and mortality and in improving quality of life for people with 16 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 22, Number 4S diabetes, (2) potential cost-effectiveness of the intervention, (3) uncertainty about the effectiveness of the intervention, and (4) potential feasibility of implementing the intervention in routine public health practice. Two priority areas were selected for review. The systematic review on the effectiveness of diabetes self-management education interventions in community settings is found in the accompanying article. 24 In this review we focus on two healthcare system interventions: disease management and case management.

The analytic framework for disease and case management interventions (Figure 1) illustrates our conceptual approach and depicts the relationships between interventions and provider and patient outcomes. The multifactorial nature of disease management is demonstrated by listing the subelements under the main elements of healthcare delivery system, providers, patients, and populations. Case management can be implemented along with disease management, as a single intervention, or with other interventions. It is, therefore, depicted as overlapping with disease management in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Analytic framework for disease and case management.

Figure

Figure 1. Analytic framework for disease and case management. Ovals denote interventions, rectangles with rounded corners denote short-term outcomes, and rectangles with squared corners denote long-term outcomes. BP, blood pressure; PA, physical activity; (more...)

Outcomes for disease and case management also involve the healthcare system, provider, and patient or population (Table 1). Evidence for all outcomes listed was examined in these reviews, but the recommendations of the Task Force 21 were based on a subset of the outcomes thought to be most related to health and quality of life (those outcomes are in bold in Table 1). The healthcare system's structure, processes, and resources affect the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of providers, particularly with respect to screening for complications and prevention and treatment practices. Provider monitoring and subsequent appropriate management of GHb, blood pressure, and lipid levels can be associated with improved outcomes, as these physiologic measures are related to health outcomes 25 26 27 28 29 , and effective treatments and prevention strategies are available. 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 Annual screening for retinopathy, nephropathy, and foot lesions and peripheral neuropathy, followed by appropriate management for people identified with abnormalities, is associated with improved health outcomes in people with diabetes. 30 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37

Table 1. Outcomes reviewed for disease and case management interventions in diabetes.

Table

Table 1. Outcomes reviewed for disease and case management interventions in diabetes.

Disease and case management can affect patient knowledge 38 and psychosocial mediators such as self-efficacy, 39 social support, 40 and health beliefs, 40 41 which, in turn, predict self-care behaviors. Patient self-care behaviors (e.g., self-monitoring of blood glucose) and lifestyle correlate with short-term outcomes (glycemic control, blood pressure, lipid concentrations, renal function, lesions of the feet, and diabetic retinopathy), 25 , 37 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 which, in turn, affect long-term health (microvascular and macrovascular disease), quality of life, and mortality. 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 49

The Community Guide focuses on interventions in community settings, interventions involving populations, and healthcare system approaches to care. Our consultants (see Acknowledgments) judged disease and case management to be important healthcare system-level interventions for people with diabetes. Our review did not examine evidence of the effectiveness of clinical care interventions focused on the individual patient: recommendations on clinical care can be obtained from the ADA 29 and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force provides screening recommendations. 50

Data Sources

The scientific literature was searched through December 2000 by using the MEDLINE database of the National Library of Medicine (started in 1966), the Educational Resources Information Center database (ERIC, 1966), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health database (CINAHL, 1982), and Healthstar (1975). The medical subject headings (MeSH) searched were diabetes, case management, and disease management, including all subheadings. Text word searches were performed on multiple additional terms, including care model, shared care, primary health care, medical specialties, primary, or specialist. Abstracts were not included because they generally had insufficient information to assess the validity of the study using Community Guide criteria. 22 Dissertations were also excluded, because the available abstracts contained insufficient information for evaluation and the full text was frequently unavailable. Titles of articles and abstracts extracted by the search were reviewed for relevance, and if potentially relevant the full-text article was retrieved. We also reviewed the reference lists of included articles, and our consultants provided adde conducted in Established Maitional relevant citations.

Study Selection

To be included in the review, studies had to (1) be primary investigations of interventions selected for evaluation; (2) be conducted in Established Market Economiesc; (3) provide information on one or more outcomes of interest preselected by the team (Table 1); and (4) meet minimum quality standards. 22 All types of comparative study designs were included, including studies with concurrent or before-andafter comparison groups.

Data Abstraction and Synthesis

Community Guide rules of evidence characterize effectiveness as strong, sufficient, or insufficient on the basis of the number of available studies, the suitability of study designs for evaluating effectiveness, the quality of execution, the consistency of the results, and effect sizes. 22 Each study that met the inclusion criteria was evaluated by using a standardized abstraction form 51 and assessed for suitability of its study design and threats to internal validity, as described previously. 22 Studies were characterized as having good, fair, or limited quality of execution on the basis of the number of threats to validity; 22 only those with good or fair execution were included. A summary effect measure (i.e., the difference between the intervention and comparison group) was calculated for outcomes of interest. Absolute differences were used for outcomes with consistent measurement scales (e.g., HbA1c and blood pressure) and relative differences for outcomes with variable scales or weights of measurement (e.g., quality of life). Interquartile ranges are presented as an index of variability when seven or more studies were available in the body of evidence; otherwise ranges are shown.

Summarizing Other Effects and Barriers

The Community Guide systematic review of disease and case management in diabetes routinely sought information on other effects (i.e., positive and negative health or nonhealth "side effects") and barriers to implementation (if there was evidence of effectiveness); these effects were evaluated by the systematic review development team and mentioned if they were considered important.

Economic Evaluations

Methods for the economic evaluations in the Community Guide were published in 2000. 23 Reviews of studies reporting economic evaluations were performed only if the intervention was found to be effective.

Summarizing Applicability

The body of evidence used to assess effectiveness was also used to assess applicability. The systematic review development team and the Task Force drew conclusions about the applicability of the available literature to various populations and settings after examining data on patient and intervention characteristics, settings, follow-up periods, methods of participant recruitment, and participation rates.

Summarizing Research Gaps

Systematic reviews in the Community Guide identify existing information on which to base public health decisions about implementing interventions. An important additional benefit of these reviews is the identification of areas in which information is lacking or of poor quality. Where evidence of the effectiveness of an intervention was sufficient or strong, remaining questions about effectiveness, applicability, other effects, economic consequences, and barriers to implementation are presented. In contrast, where the evidence of effectiveness of an intervention was insufficient, only research questions relating to effectiveness and other effects are presented. Applicability issues are also included if they affected the assessment of effectiveness. The team decided it would be premature to identify research gaps in economic evaluations or barriers before effectiveness was demonstrated.

Reviews of Evidence

Disease Management

Disease management has played a prominent role in innovative systems of clinical care over the past two decades. The earliest application of a disease-focused intervention involved prescription drugs, 52 and the first use of the term disease management appears to have been in the late 1980s at the Mayo Clinic. 53 In the mid-1990s the term emerged in the general medical literature, and by 1999 approximately 200 companies offered disease management services. 54 The initial focus of disease management was cost control, but, more recently, quality as well as economic efficiency have driven disease management interventions. These interventions are used in several clinical care areas, primarily for costly, chronic diseases or conditions such as heart failure, 55 56 arthritis, 57 and depression. 58 59 The development of disease management has spawned a variety of definitions and related terms. We define disease management as an organized, proactive, multicomponent approach to healthcare delivery that involves all members of a population with a specific disease entity such as diabetes. Care is focused on and integrated across (1) the entire spectrum of the disease and its complications, (2) the prevention of comorbid conditions, and (3) the relevant aspects of the delivery system. The goal is to improve short- and long-term health or economic outcomes or both in the entire population with the disease. The essential components of disease management are (1) the identification of the population with diabetes or a subset with specific characteristics (e.g., cardiovascular disease risk factors), (2) guidelines or performance standards for care, (3) management of identified people, and (4) information systems for tracking and monitoring. Additional interventions can be incorporated that focus on the patient or population (e.g., diabetes self-management education [DSME]), the provider (e.g., reminders or continuing education), or the healthcare system or practice (e.g., practice redesign in which "planned improvements" are made in "the organization of practice to better meet the needs of the chronically ill" 60 ).

Effectiveness

Our search identified 35 studies (in 36 reports) examining interventions that met our definition of disease management ( Figure 2). 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 The most common reasons that studies did not meet our definition were that they did not use some form of practice guidelines or that the entire target population was not identified, monitored, and managed. 25 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 Of the 35 studies, eight were not included because of multiple limitations in execution, usually inadequate descriptive information of the study population or intervention characteristics, or inadequate statistical analyses. 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 Among the 27 remaining studies, design suitability 22 was greatest in nine, moderate in three, and least suitable in 15. Details of the 27 qualifying studies are provided on the Community Guide website (www. thecommunityguide.org).

Figure 2. Systematic review flow diagram.

Figure

Figure 2. Systematic review flow diagram. n, number of studies; CINAHL, Cumulative Index to Nursing Allied Health.

The 27 studies provide evidence of effectiveness for several patient and provider outcomes (Table 2). Effectiveness of disease management interventions on GHb levels is shown in Figure 3 and on rates of provider monitoring in Figure 4. GHb improved in 18 of 19 studies, with a median net change of _0.5% (interquartile range, _1.35% to _0.1%). Strong evidence existed for improvement in the percentage of providers performing annual monitoring of GHb and for retinopathy screening. Sufficient evidence was present of improvement in screening by providers for foot lesions or peripheral neuropathy, lipid concentrations, and proteinuria (Figure 4). Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of disease management on other important patient outcomes, including weight and body mass index, blood pressure, and lipid concentrations, as few studies examined these outcomes and the reported results were inconsistent.

Table 2. Effects of disease and case management interventions in diabetes.

Table

Table 2. Effects of disease and case management interventions in diabetes.

Figure 3. Effect of disease management on glycated hemoglobin.

Figure

Figure 3. Effect of disease management on glycated hemoglobin. The study's first author and the follow-up interval from end of the intervention are shown on the y-axis. The absolute difference between the intervention and comparison group (post minus (more...)

Figure 4. Effect of disease management on provider monitoring rates.

Figure

Figure 4. Effect of disease management on provider monitoring rates. The y-axis represents absolute change in provider monitoring rates (percentage of providers performing the test or screening in the last year) for each of the interventions on the x-axis. (more...)

Economic

Two economic studies were included in this review. The first study, conducted in Scotland, reported the average cost for adult patients of an integrated care disease management intervention versus traditional hospital clinic care. 65 Integrated care patients were seen in a general practice every 3 or 4 months and in the hospital clinic annually. General practitioners and patients received consultation reminders, patient records were consistently updated, and practices received care guidelines. Traditional care patients were seen at the clinic every 4 months and received appointment reminders. Costs included those associated with general practice and clinic visits (staff, administrative, overhead, and supply costs). The annual average adjusted costs were $143 to $185 for integrated care and $101 for traditional care, resulting in a higher annual average cost for the intervention of $42 to $84, adjusted to the Community Guide reference case. 23 After 2 years no significant difference was seen between the two groups for GHb, body mass index, creatinine, or blood pressure. The integrated care patients, however, had higher annual rates compared with the traditional care group for routine diabetes care visits (5.3 versus 4.8) and screening and monitoring of GHb (4.5 versus 1.3), blood pressure (4.2 versus 1.2), and visual acuity (2.6 versus 0.7). This study was classified as good, based on the quality assessment criteria used in the Community Guide. 23 The second study was a cost-benefit analysis of preconception plus prenatal care versus prenatal care only for women with established diabetes. 124 Preconception care involved close interaction between the patient and an interdisciplinary healthcare team (primary care and specialist physicians, nurse educator, dietitian, and social worker), intensive evaluation, follow-up, testing, and monitoring to optimize glycemic control and reduce adverse maternal and infant outcomes. The analysis modeled the program's costs and benefits, or savings, from reduced adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Program costs included personnel, laboratory and other tests, supplies, outreach, delivery, and time of the patient and a significant other. Costs for maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes were for hospital, physician, and subsequent neonatal care. Costs attributable to future lost productivity of mother and child were not included. The preconception care intervention's adjusted cost saving (net benefit) of $2702 per enrollee was the difference between estimated prenatal care only and the preconception and prenatal care intervention costs (program costs plus maternal and neonatal adverse outcome costs). The savings resulted largely from preventing the most expensive adverse events-congenital anomalies. The incremental benefit-cost ratio of 1.86 was the adverse outcome cost savings of the preconception plus prenatal care intervention versus the prenatal-only program divided by the difference in program costs. This ratio represents the savings for each additional dollar invested in the preconception and prenatal care program versus the prenatal care-only program. No effect size was determined, as this was a modeling study relying on secondary data. This study was classified as good, based on the quality assessment criteria used in the Community Guide. 23

Applicability

These interventions were examined predominantly in two settings, community clinics 62 , 63 , 64 , 67 , 78 , 82 , 83 , 87 and managed care organizations, and thus conclusions about their effectiveness apply specifically to these settings. The managed care organizations included network or primary care-based models 61 , 77 , 86 , 96 and staff or group model HMOs. 66 , 68 , 70 , 72 , 74 , 80 , 81 , 84 , 85 Other settings (academic centers, 73 76 a hospital clinic, 65 and the Indian Health Service 69 75 ) were examined but did not provide sufficient data to determine the effectiveness of disease management in those settings. The organizational components of community clinics and managed care delivery systems can differ from those in other delivery systems, limiting how applicable the interventions are in other types of delivery systems. However, findings in HMOs may be applicable to other organized, inclusive systems, such as the Indian Health Service.

Studies generally involved the entire population of providers in a facility, although in some studies the researchers selected specific providers to participate, 72 , 78 , 84 or the providers volunteered. 64 , 81 , 87 Researcher- or self-selected providers may have more of a commitment to change or have greater skills in systems change, the use of practice guidelines, or team approaches to care. Studies were conducted predominantly in urban centers in the United States 62 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 80 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 96 , 125 and Europe. 63 , 64 , 65 , 79 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 87 The body of evidence on disease management examined either adults with type 2 diabetes or populations with mixed type 1 and 2 (predominantly type 2). Although type 1 patients were not examined exclusively in any study, these results likely apply to adults with type 1 disease. Despite important differences in characteristics between people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, including age of onset, incidence of ketoacidosis, exogenous insulin dependence, and use of oral hypoglycemic drugs, the goals of treatment and general management guidelines are identical. Thus, effective methods of population management are likely to be similar for adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Effectiveness can differ between children or adolescents and adults, however, as parents likely serve as intermediaries between the healthcare system and the child. No studies examined children with diabetes. No data were available on gestational diabetes (gestational diabetes develops in 2% to 3% of all pregnant women and disappears with delivery 1 ), but disease management interventions likely apply to that population. Disease management has been studied in minority and racially mixed populations, 61 , 62 , 67 , 68 , 73 , 75 , 96 but it remains unclear how cultural characteristics can affect outcomes: access to these interventions might also differ between minority and Caucasian populations.

In summary, evidence for the effectiveness of disease management is applicable to adults with diabetes in managed care organizations and community clinics in the United States and Europe.

Case Management

Case management is an important intervention for people at high risk for adverse outcomes and excessive healthcare utilization. 126 It usually involves the assignment of authority to a professional (the case manager) who is not the provider of direct health care but who oversees and is responsible for coordinating and implementing care. In interventions involving diabetes, the case manager is generally a nonphysician, most commonly a nurse.

Case management was first used in nursing and social work as early as the 1850s, 127 and the terminology has evolved. The term care management is often used instead, and the American Geriatrics Society prefers this term to others. 128 The effectiveness of case management has been examined in a number of diseases, conditions, and situations other than diabetes: psychiatric disorders, 129 chronic congestive heart failure, 130 geriatric care, 131 and care initiated at the time of hospital discharge. 132 133 Case management has five essential features: (1) identification of eligible patients, (2) assessment, (3) development of an individual care plan, (4) implementation of the care plan, and (5) monitoring of outcomes. Patients are generally identified because of high risk for excessive resource utilization, poor outcomes, or poor coordination of services. All people with diabetes might be targeted, but more commonly a subset with specific disease risk factors (e.g., coexisting cardiovascular disease or poor glycemic control) or high utilization (e.g., as determined by visits or costs) is targeted. After the population for case management has been identified, each individual patient's needs are comprehensively assessed, and an individual care plan is developed and implemented. Monitoring of the individual patient or population can involve process (e.g., patient satisfaction, service utilization), health, quality of life, or economic outcomes (e.g., cost, hospital admissions).

Case management interventions are often incorporated into multicomponent interventions, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of case management itself. As Wagner 134 pointed out, these interventions can be "more than a case manager" and can be implemented in healthcare systems that encompass a more responsive system of care for the chronically ill along with other population-based interventions. Interventions that can be combined with case management include self-management education, home visits, telephone call outreach, telemedicine, and patient reminders.

Effectiveness

We identified 24 studies (in 27 reports) that examined the effectiveness of diabetes case management. 61 , 62 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 70 , 73 , 77 , 79 , 85 , 89 , 93 , 96 , 101 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 Seven studies were excluded because of multiple limitations in quality, usually inadequate descriptive information of the study population and intervention characteristics, or inadequate statistical analyses, 93 , 101 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 and two 146 147 were excluded for lack of relevant outcomes. Among the 15 qualifying studies, design suitability was greatest for 8, moderate for 1, and least suitable for 6. Details of the studies are found in Appendix A and at the website (www.thecommunityguide.org). The 15 studies provided data on numerous provider and patient outcomes (Table 2). Effectiveness of case management interventions on GHb is shown in Figure 5. Improvement in GHb was similar when case management was delivered in addition to disease management and when it was not. When case management was delivered with disease management, evidence was sufficient of its effect on provider monitoring of GHb. When examined without disease management, or in combination with disease management, evidence was insufficient of the effect of case management on lipid concentrations, weight or body mass index, and blood pressure, as studies were few, with inconsistent results. Quality of life improved in two studies. 67 137

Figure 5. Effect of case management on glycated hemoglobin.

Figure

Figure 5. Effect of case management on glycated hemoglobin. The study's first author and the follow-up interval from end of the intervention are shown on the y-axis. An asterisk (*) indicates a study in which the intervention included disease management (more...)

Economic

No studies were found that met the requirements for inclusion in a Community Guide review. 23

Applicability

Except for one study in the United Kingdom, 79 all studies were performed in the United States. Settings were primarily managed care organizations, 61 , 66 , 68 , 70 , 77 , 85 , 96 , 137 although an academic center, 73 community clinics, 62 , 67 , 79 , 138 , 145 a U.S. military clinic, 135 and a U.S. veterans hospital 69 136 were included as well. In most studies the entire eligible population of providers at a clinic or in a healthcare organization was recruited to participate, but in three studies the researcher selected a subset of providers. 137 , 138 , 144 Study populations were predominantly mixed by gender and race, and they were mainly adults with type 2 diabetes. One study 137 was of children with type 1 diabetes (mean age, 9.8 years). In numerous studies demographic information was missing, including age and type of diabetes.

Case management was implemented along with disease management in many of the studies. 61 , 62 , 66 , 68 , 73 , 77 , 79 , 85 , 89 , 96 , 145 In other studies additional interventions were used, including DSME, 136 137 telemedicine support, 135 insulin-adjustment algorithms, 137 group support, 137 visit reminders, 136 and hospital discharge assessment and follow-up. 69 It was not possible to determine the isolated effect of case management in these studies.

In summary, the evidence for the effectiveness of case management is applicable primarily in the U.S. managed care setting for adults with type 2 diabetes. The intervention is effective both when delivered in conjunction with disease management and when delivered with one or more educational, reminder, or support interventions.

Other Issues Related to Disease and Case Management

Other positive or negative effects

In addition to the positive effects of disease and case management discussed above, the Task Force identified an additional potential benefit in that the organized and evidencebased approach to care in diabetes can be extended to other diseases and healthcare needs in an organization. The same kind of infrastructure that supports diabetes disease and case management interventions, including information systems, practice guidelines, and support staff training and resources, could be used for the care of people with cardiovascular disease, mental health disorders, or chronic pain or for the delivery of preventive services (e.g., immunization of adults and children by using registries and reminder/recall systems). To our knowledge, however, this potential benefit has not yet been evaluated in the literature.

Barriers to implementation

The systematic review development team identified potential barriers at the level of the organization, the provider or support staff, or the patient when implementing disease and case management interventions, although these were not evaluated in this body of literature. Barriers at the organizational level include a deficiency of organizational leadership to support these interventions and the unavailability of financial resources necessary for implementation and maintenance. Furthermore, the organization may not have practice guidelines or the necessary skills and resources to develop guidelines, which can be perceived as a barrier. (Several practice guidelines are publicly available, such as the guidelines published annually by the ADA. 148 )

For providers practicing in the traditional mode of reactive care, the switch to proactive, organized management requires the redesign of much of their practice and approach to patient care: appointment and follow-up scheduling; allocation of clinic time to review registries and practice guidelines; delineation of the roles of support staff and providers; the delegation of care traditionally performed by physicians to other professionals, such as nurses; team organization; and the use of planned visits and patient reminders. 60 , 149 , 150 Providers can find disease management time-consuming, particularly initially, and they can be inexperienced or uncomfortable with information systems. Barriers for using practice guidelines, described elsewhere, 151 include lack of awareness of or familiarity with them, disagreement with the guidelines, lack of confidence that patient outcomes can be improved, inability to overcome the inertia of previous practice, and external barriers such as inconvenience and insufficient time. In addition, little or no reimbursement may be available for delivering patient reminders and other proactive care strategies. Identifying patients to participate in these interventions may also be difficult. Patients can be identified, however, from provider and staff memory, hospital discharge summaries, claims data, 152 153 visit encounter forms, laboratory test results, patient-initiated visits, or pharmacy activity. Patient barriers include difficulties in maintaining healthy lifestyles and the complexity of self-management required for diabetes management. 154

Research Issues for Disease and Case Management Interventions in Diabetes

Even though disease and case management were found effective in the managed care setting for improving glycemic control and provider monitoring of certain important outcomes, several important research gaps were identified in this review. One of the most pressing needs is to better define effective interventions. Disease management has multiple component interventions. To make optimal use of resources, however, only the interventions that contribute most to positive outcomes should be implemented, and these interventions need to be defined. Case management interventions are usually delivered with other interventions, and the effectiveness of these other interventions also needs to be defined. Are case management interventions delivered with disease management more effective than case management delivered as a single intervention? Are there specific additional interventions that augment the effectiveness of disease and case management, such as DSME? Additional research questions relating to case management include identifying the optimal intensity (frequency and duration) of patient contact and determining whether professionals other than nurses (e.g., social workers or pharmacists) could function as case managers.

How best to integrate disease and case management interventions into existing healthcare systems also needs to be addressed. What are the strengths and limitations of delivering these interventions as part of primary care or specialty care, or might they best be delivered by contracted organizations and provider networks that are separate from the patient's healthcare delivery system (i.e., the carve-out model)? 155 Although the existing effectiveness literature examines many important outcomes, research is needed to determine the effect of disease and case management on long-term health and quality of life outcomes, including cardiovascular disease events, renal failure, visual impairment, amputations, and mortality. Further work is also needed to determine the effect of case management on blood pressure, weight, lipid concentrations, and provider screening rates for retinopathy, peripheral neuropathy, and microalbuminuria. In addition, provider and patient satisfaction with these interventions needs much more attention from researchers.

As discussed earlier, the applicability of these data is somewhat limited, leaving numerous important questions unanswered. For example, are disease and case management effective in settings other than HMOs and community clinics, such as academic clinics and independent private practices? Do these interventions work better in some types of delivery systems than others? Are they effective for adolescents with diabetes? How do the cultural, educational, and socioeconomic characteristics of a population affect outcomes? What are the key barriers that providers perceive for disease and case management? How would it be best to obviate them? Do patients perceive any barriers to these interventions?

Numerous deficiencies in the methodologies of these studies were identified. Often there was inadequate descriptive information; studies need to include adequate demographic information (at a minimum, age, gender, race or ethnicity, and type of diabetes), a description of the delivery system infrastructure (automated information systems, prior use of guidelines, resource support, management [medical and nonmedical] commitment and support), and details of the intervention (components, frequency and duration of patient contact, who delivered the intervention, whether and which clinical practice guidelines were used, and degree and type of interface with primary care). In addition, more studies are needed with a concurrent comparison group to control for secular trends in healthcare delivery and patient practices. Finally, studies are needed in which a broad range of providers is recruited.

Conclusions

According to Community Guide rules of evidence, 22 strong evidence exists that disease management interventions are effective in improving glycemic control in people with diabetes and in improving provider monitoring of GHb and screening for diabetic retinopathy. There is sufficient evidence that disease management is effective in improving provider screening for foot lesions and peripheral neuropathy, screening of urine for protein, and monitoring of lipid concentrations. For case management, evidence is strong of its effectiveness in improving glycemic control. When case management is delivered along with disease management, evidence is sufficient that it is effective in improving provider monitoring of GHb. Deficiencies in methodology of the existing literature were identified, and research gaps noted, particularly in the areas of effectiveness of specific components of these interventions, effects on long-term health and quality of life outcomes, and application to diverse populations and settings.

The authors thank Stephanie Zaza, MD, MPH, for support, technical assistance, and editorial review; Kristi Riccio, BSc, for technical assistance; and Kate W. Harris, BA, for editorial and technical assistance. The authors acknowledge the following consultants for their contribution to this manuscript: Tanya Agurs-Collins, PhD, Howard University Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Ann Albright, PhD, RD, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento; Pam Allweiss, MD, Lexington, KY; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, MD, University of California, San Diego; Richard Eastman, MD, Cygnus, San Francisco, CA; Luis Escobedo, MD, New Mexico Department of Health, Las Cruces; Wilfred Fujimoto, MD, University of Washington, Seattle; Richard Kahn, PhD, American Diabetes Association, Alexandria VA; Robert Kaplan, PhD, University of California, San Diego; Shiriki Kumanyika, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; David Marrerro, PhD, Indiana University, Indianapolis; Marjorie Mau, MD, Honolulu, HI; Nicolaas Pronk, PhD, HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN; Laverne Reid, PhD, MPH, North Carolina Central University, Durham; Yvette Roubideaux, MD, MPH, University of Arizona, Tucson.

The authors also thank Semra Aytur, MPH, Inkyung Baik, PhD, Holly Murphy MD, MPH, Cora Roelofs, ScD, and Kelly Welch, BSc, for assisting us in abstracting data from the studies included in this review.

References

1.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National diabetes fact sheet 1998. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/facts98.htm.
2.
American Diabetes Association Economic consequences of diabetes mellitus in the U.S. in 1997. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:296–309. [PubMed: 9539999]
3.
Selby JV, Ray GT, Zhang D, Colby C.J Excess costs of medical care for patients with diabetes in a managed care population. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1396–402. [PubMed: 9283786]
4.
Glasgow RE, Hiss RG, Anderson RM, et al Report of the Health Care Delivery Work Group: behavioral research related to the establishment of a chronic disease model for diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:124–30. [PubMed: 11194217]
5.
Glasgow RE, Strycker LA Preventive care practices for diabetes management in two primary care samples. Am J Prev Med. 2000;19:9–14. [PubMed: 10865158]
6.
Peters AL, Legorreta AP, Ossorio RC, Davidson MB Quality of outpatient care provided to diabetic patients: A health maintenance organization experience. Diabetes Care. 1996;19:601–6. [PubMed: 8725859]
7.
Klonoff DC, Schwartz DM An economic analysis of interventions for diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2000;23:390–404. [PubMed: 10868871]
8.
Gilmer TP, O'Connor PJ, Manning WG, Rush WA The cost to health plans of poor glycemic control. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1847–53. [PubMed: 9405905]
9.
Testa MA, Simonson DC Health economic benefits and quality of life during improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA. 1998;280:1490–6. [PubMed: 9809729]
10.
Wagner EH, Sandhu N, Newton KM, McCulloch DK, Ramsey SD, Grothaus LC Effect of improved glycemic control on health care costs and utilization. JAMA. 2001;285:182–9. [PubMed: 11176811]
11.
Task Force on Community Preventive Services Introducing the Guide to Community Preventive Services: methods, first recommendations and expert commentary Am J Prev Med 2000. 18(suppl 1)1–142.
12.
Task Force on Community Preventive Services Recommendations regarding interventions to improve vaccination coverage in children, adolescents, and adults Am J Prev Med 2000. 18(suppl 1)92–6. [PubMed: 10806981]
13.
Briss PA, Rodewald LE, Hinman AR, et al Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to improve vaccination coverage in children, adolescents, and adults: The Task Force on Community Preventive Services Am J Prev Med 2000. 18(suppl 1)97–140. [PubMed: 10806982]
14.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccine-preventable diseases: improving vaccination coverage in children, adolescents, and adults: A report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999. 48(RR-8)1–15. [PubMed: 10428099]
15.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Strategies for reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, increasing tobacco-use cessation, and reducing initiation in communities and health-care systems: A report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2000. 49(RR-12)1–11. [PubMed: 15580784]
16.
Task Force on Community Preventive Services Recommendations regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke Am J Prev Med 2001. 20(suppl 2)10–5. [PubMed: 11173214]
17.
Hopkins DP, Briss PA, Ricard CJ, et al Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke Am J Prev Med 2001. 20(suppl 2)16–66. [PubMed: 11173215]
18.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Motor vehicle occupant injury: strategies for increasing use of child safety seats, increasing use of safety belts, and reducing alcohol-impaired driving MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2001. 50(RR-7)1–16. [PubMed: 12418509]
19.
Zaza S, Sleet DA, Thompson RS, Sosin DM, Bolen JC, Task Force on Community Preventive Services Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to increase use of child safety seats Am J Prev Med 2001. 21(suppl 4)31–47. [PubMed: 11691560]
20.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Healthy people 2010, 2nd ed, WashingtonU.S. Government Printing Office2000.
21.
Task Force on Community Preventive Services Recommendations for healthcare system and self-management education interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality from diabetes Am J Prev Med 2002. 22(suppl 4)10–14. [PubMed: 11985932]
22.
Briss PA, Zaza S, Pappaioanou M, et al Developing an evidence-based Guide to Community Preventive Services-methods: The Task Force on Community Preventive Services Am J Prev Med 2000. 18(suppl 1)35–43. [PubMed: 10806978]
23.
Carande-Kulis VG, Maciosek MV, Briss PA, et al Methods for systematic review of economic evaluations for the Guide to Community Preventive Services: The Task Force on Community Preventive Services Am J Prev Med 2000. 18(suppl 1)75–91. [PubMed: 10806980]
24.
Norris SL, Nichols PJ, Caspersen CJ, et al., and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services Increasing diabetes self-management education in community settings: a systematic review Am J Prev Med 2002. 22(suppl 4)39–66. [PubMed: 11985934]
25.
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:977–86. [PubMed: 8366922]
26.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33) Lancet. 1998;352:837–53. [PubMed: 9742976]
27.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 38) Br Med J. 1998;317:703–13. [PMC free article: PMC28659] [PubMed: 9732337]
28.
Fontbonne A, Eschwege E, Cambien F, et al Hypertriglyceridaemia as a risk factor of coronary heart disease mortality in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance or diabetes: Results from the 11-year follow-up of the Paris Prospective Study. Diabetologia. 1989;32:300–4. [PubMed: 2666216]
29.
American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus Diabetes Care 2001. 24(suppl 1)S33–S55.
30.
American Diabetes Association Preventive foot care in people with diabetes Diabetes Care 2001. 24(suppl 1)S56–S57.
31.
American Diabetes Association Management of dyslipidemia in adults with diabetes Diabetes Care 2001. 24(suppl 1)S58–S61.
32.
American Diabetes Association Tests of glycemia in diabetes Diabetes Care 2001. 24(suppl 1)S80–S82.
33.
Ravid M, Lang R, Rachmani R, Lishner M Long-term renoprotective effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: A 7-year follow-up study. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:286–9. [PubMed: 8572838]
34.
American Diabetes Association Diabetic retinopathy Diabetes Care 2001. 24(suppl 1)S73–S76.
35.
Bild DE, Selby JV, Sinnock P, Browder WS, Braveman P, Showstack JA Lower extremity amputation in people with diabetes: Epidemiology and prevention. Diabetes Care. 1989;12:24–31. [PubMed: 2714164]
36.
Rith-Najarian SJ, Stolusky T, Gohdes DM Identifying diabetic patients at high risk for lower-extremity amputation in a primary health care setting: A prospective evaluation of simple screening criteria. Diabetes Care. 1992;15:1386–9. [PubMed: 1425105]
37.
Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group Early photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy: ETDRS Report Number 9. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:766–85. [PubMed: 2062512]
38.
Lockington TJ, Farrant S, Meadown KA, Dowlatshahi D, Wise PH Knowledge profile and control in diabetic patients. Diabet Med. 1988;5: 381–6. [PubMed: 2968890]
39.
Grembowski D, Patrick D, Diehr P, et al Self-efficacy and health behavior among older adults. J Health Soc Behav. 1993;34:89–104. [PubMed: 8277130]
40.
Wilson W, Ary DV, Biglan A, Glasgow RE, Toobert DJ, Campbell DR Psychosocial predictors of self-care behaviors (compliance) and glycemic control in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1986;9:614–22. [PubMed: 3803153]
41.
Peyrot M Behavior change in diabetes education Diabetes Educ 1999. 25(suppl 6)62–73. [PubMed: 10711086]
42.
Ohkubo Y, Kishikawa H, Araki E, et al Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1995;28:103–17. [PubMed: 7587918]
43.
Wake N, Hisashige A, Katayama T, et al Cost-effectiveness of intensive insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes: a 10-year follow-up of the Kumamoto study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2000;48:201–10. [PubMed: 10802159]
44.
Reaven G Beneficial effect of moderate weight loss in older patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus poorly controlled with insulin. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1985;33:93–5. [PubMed: 3881506]
45.
Wing RR, Koeske R, Epstein LH, Nowalk MP, Gooding W, Becker D Long-term effects of modest weight loss in type II diabetic patients. Arch Intern Med. 1987;147:1749–53. [PubMed: 3310940]
46.
Watts NB, Spanheimer RG, DiGirolamo M, et al Prediction of glucose response to weight loss in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:803–6. [PubMed: 2327840]
47.
American Diabetes Association Nutrition recommendations and principles for people with diabetes mellitus Diabetes Care 2001. 24(suppl 1)S44–S47.
48.
American Diabetes Association Diabetes mellitus and exercise Diabetes Care 2001. 24(suppl 1)S51–S55.
49.
Bakris GL, Williams M, Dworkin L, et al Preserving renal function in adults with hypertension and diabetes: a consensus approach: National Kidney Foundation Hypertension and Diabetes Executive Committees Working Group. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;36:646–61. [PubMed: 10977801]
50.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening for diabetes mellitus 28 American Journal of Preventive Medicine 22, Alexandria, VA. International Medical Publishing1996. 193–208.
51.
Zaza S, Wright-De Aguero LK, Briss P, et al Data collection instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the Guide to Community Preventive Services Am J Prev Med 2000. 18(suppl 1)44–74. [PubMed: 10806979]
52.
Kesteloot K Disease management: A new technology in need of critical assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:506–19. [PubMed: 10874378]
53.
Zitter M A new paradigm in health care delivery: disease management: In: Todd WE, Nash E, eds. Disease management: a systems approach to improving patient outcomes. Chicago, IL: American Hospital Publishing, Inc. 1997:1–26.
54.
Bodenheimer T Disease management in the American market. Br Med J. 2000;320:563–6. [PMC free article: PMC1117603] [PubMed: 10688566]
55.
Roglieri JL, Futterman R, McDonough KL, et al Disease management interventions to improve outcomes in congestive heart failure. Am J Manag Care. 1997;3:1831–9. [PubMed: 10178473]
56.
Rich MW, Beckham V, Wittenberg C, Leven CL, Freedland KE, Carney RM A multidisciplinary intervention to prevent the readmission of elderly patients with congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1190–5. [PubMed: 7565975]
57.
Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Stewart AL, et al Evidence suggesting that a chronic disease self-management program can improve health status while reducing hospitalization: a randomized trial. Med Care. 1999;37:5–14. [PubMed: 10413387]
58.
Lin EH, VonKorff M, Russo J, et al Can depression treatment in primary care reduce disability? A stepped care approach. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9: 1052–8. [PubMed: 11115207]
59.
Wells KB, Sherbourne C, Schoenbaum M, et al Impact of disseminating quality improvement programs for depression in managed primary care: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2000;283:212–20. [PubMed: 10634337]
60.
Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M Improving outcomes in chronic illness. Manag Care Q. 1996;4:12–25. [PubMed: 10157259]
61.
Sikka R, Waters J, Moore W, Sutton DR, Herman WH, Aubert RE Renal assessment practices and the effect of nurse case management of health maintenance organization patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22: 1–6. [PubMed: 10333895]
62.
Legorreta A, Peters A, Ossorio RC, Lopez R, Jatulis D, Davidson M Effect of a comprehensive nurse-managed diabetes program: an HMO prospective study. Am J Manag Care. 1996;2:1024–30.
63.
Carlson A, Rosenqvist U Diabetes care organization, process, and patient outcomes: effects of a diabetes control program. Diabetes Educ. 1991;17: 42–8. [PubMed: 1986903]
64.
de Sonnaville JJ, Bouma M, Colly LP, Deville W, Wijkel D, Heine RJ Sustained good glycaemic control in NIDDM patients by implementation of structured care in general practice: 2-year follow-up study. Diabetologia. 1997;40:1334–40. [PubMed: 9389427]
65.
Diabetes Integrated Care Evaluation Team Integrated care for diabetes: clinical, psychosocial, and economic evaluation. Br Med J. 1994;308:1208– 12. [PMC free article: PMC2540045] [PubMed: 8180540]
66.
O'Connor PJ, Rush WA, Peterson J, et al Continuous quality improvement can improve glycemic control for HMO patients with diabetes. Arch Fam Med. 1996;5:502–6. [PubMed: 8930220]
67.
Peters AL, Davidson MB Application of a diabetes managed care program: The feasibility of using nurses and a computer system to provide effective care. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1037–43. [PubMed: 9653591]
68.
Sadur CN, Moline N, Costa M, et al Diabetes management in a health maintenance organization: Efficacy of care management using cluster visits. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:2011–7. [PubMed: 10587835]
69.
Tom-Orme L Chronic disease and the social matrix: a Native American diabetes intervention. Recent Adv Nurs. 1988;22:89–109. [PubMed: 3231736]
70.
Domurat ES Diabetes managed care and clinical outcomes: the Harbor City, California Kaiser Permanente diabetes care system. Am J Manag Care. 1999;5:1299–307. [PubMed: 10622995]
71.
McCulloch DK, Price MJ, Hindmarsh M, Wagner EH A population-based approach to diabetes management in a primary care setting: early results and lessons learned. Eff Clin Pract. 1998;1:12–22. [PubMed: 10345254]
72.
Taplin S, Galvin MS, Payne T, Coole D, Wagner E Putting populationbased care into practice: real option or rhetoric? J Am Board Fam Pract. 1998;11:116–26. [PubMed: 9542703]
73.
Cook CB, Ziemer DC, El-Kebbi IM, et al Diabetes in urban African- Americans: XVI. Overcoming clinical inertia improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:1494–500. [PubMed: 10480515]
74.
Sidorov J, Gabbay R, Harris R, et al Disease management for diabetes mellitus: impact on hemoglobin A1c. Am J Manag Care. 2000;6:1217–26. [PubMed: 11185847]
75.
Acton K, Valway S, Helgerson S, et al Improving diabetes care for American Indians. Diabetes Care. 1993;16:372–5. [PubMed: 8422815]
76.
Casey DE Jr, Egede LE Effect of a disease management tool on residents' compliance with American Diabetes Association standard of care for type 2 diabetes mellitus: American Diabetes Association. Md Med J. 1999;48: 119–21. [PubMed: 10394228]
77.
Chicoye L, Roethel CR, Hatch MH, Wesolowski W Diabetes care management: a managed care approach. WMJ. 1998;97:32–4. [PubMed: 9540446]
78.
Deichmann R, Castello E, Horswell R, Friday KE Improvements in diabetic care as measured by HbA1c after a physician education project. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:1612–6. [PubMed: 10526723]
79.
Foulkes A, Kinmonth AL, Frost S, MacDonald D Organized personal care-an effective choice for managing diabetes in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1989;39:444–7. [PMC free article: PMC1712181] [PubMed: 2560042]
80.
Friedman NM, Gleeson JM, Kent MJ, Foris M, Rodriguez DJ, Cypress M Management of diabetes mellitus in the Lovelace Health Systems' EPISODES OF CARE program. Eff Clin Pract. 1998;1:5–11. [PubMed: 10345262]
81.
Goldfracht M, Porath A Nationwide program for improving the care of diabetic patients in Israeli primary care centers. Diabetes Care. 2000;23: 495–9. [PubMed: 10857941]
82.
Johnston C, Ponsonby E Northwest Herts diabetic management system. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2000;62:177–89. [PubMed: 10837905]
83.
North Tyneside Diabetes Team The diabetes annual review as an educational tool: assessment and learning integrated with care, screening, and audit. Diabet Med. 1992;9:389–94. [PubMed: 1600714]
84.
Payne TH, Galvin M, Taplin SH, Austin B, Savarino J, Wagner EH Practicing population-based care in an HMO: evaluation after 18 months. HMO Pract. 1995;9:101–6. [PubMed: 10151092]
85.
Rubin RJ, Dietrich KA, Hawk AD Clinical and economic impact of implementing a comprehensive diabetes management program in managed care. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998;83:2635–42. [PubMed: 9709924]
86.
Sperl-Hillen J, O'Connor PJ, Carlson RR, et al Improving diabetes care in a large health care system: an enhanced primary care approach. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2000;26:615–22. [PubMed: 11098424]
87.
Varroud-Vial M, Mechaly P, Joannidis S, et al Cooperation between general practitioners and diabetologists and clinical audit improve the management of type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Metab. 1999;25:55–63. [PubMed: 10335424]
88.
Anonymous Disease management program improves diabetes outcomes, curbs hospital costs, utilization. Health Care Cost Reengineering Rep. 1998;3:42–5. [PubMed: 10178787]
89.
Davidson MB Incorporating diabetes care into a health maintenance organization setting: a practical guide. Disease Manage Health Outcomes. 1998;3:71–80.
90.
Wells S, Benett I, Holloway G, Harlow V Area-wide diabetes care: the Manchester experience with primary health care teams 1991-1997 Diabet Med 1998. 15(suppl 3)S49–S53. [PubMed: 9829770]
91.
Williams DR, Munroe C, Hospedales CJ, Greenwood RH A three-year evaluation of the quality of diabetes care in the Norwich community care scheme. Diabet Med. 1990;7:74–9. [PubMed: 2137068]
92.
Day JL, Humphreys H, Alban-Davies H Problems of comprehensive shared diabetes care. Br Med J. 1987;294:1590–2. [PMC free article: PMC1246734] [PubMed: 3113543]
93.
Joshi MS, Bernard DB Clinical performance improvement series: Classic CQI integrated with comprehensive disease management as a model for performance improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1999;25:383–95. [PubMed: 10434189]
94.
Kelling DG, Wentworth JA, Wright JB Diabetes mellitus: Using a database to implement a systematic management program. N C Med J. 1997;58: 368–71. [PubMed: 9313362]
95.
Rosenthal MM, Carlson A, Rosenqvist U Beyond CME: diabetes education field-interactive strategies from Sweden. Diabetes Educ. 1988;14:212–7. [PubMed: 3371165]
96.
Aubert RE, Herman WH, Waters J, et al Nurse case management to improve glycemic control in diabetic patients in a health maintenance organization: A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129: 605–12. [PubMed: 9786807]
97.
Adams CE, Wilson M Enhanced quality through outcome-focused standardized care plans. J Nurs Adm. 1995;25:27–34. [PubMed: 7674042]
98.
Bowyer NK A primary care team approach to the prevention of ocular complications of diabetes: a program review. J Am Optom Assoc. 1997;68: 233–42. [PubMed: 9150659]
99.
Branger PJ, van't Hooft A, van der Wouden JC, Moorman PW, van Bemmel JH Shared care for diabetes: supporting communication between primary and secondary care. Int J Med Inf. 1999;53:133–42. [PubMed: 10193883]
100.
Dargis V, Pantelejeva O, Jonushaite A, Vileikyte L, Boulton AJ Benefits of a multidisciplinary approach in the management of recurrent diabetic foot ulceration in Lithuania: a prospective study. Diabetes Care. 1999;22: 1428–31. [PubMed: 10480504]
101.
Day JL, Johnson P, Rayman G, Walker R The feasibility of a potentially 'ideal' system of integrated diabetes care and education based on a day centre. Diabet Med. 1988;5:70–5. [PubMed: 2964332]
102.
Deeb LC, Pettijohn FP, Shirah JK, Freeman G Interventions among primary-care practitioners to improve care for preventable complications of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1988;11:275–80. [PubMed: 3416683]
103.
Drozda DJ, Dawson VA, Long DJ, Freson LS, Sperling MA Assessment of the effect of a comprehensive diabetes management program on hospital admission rates of children with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Educ. 1990;16:389–93. [PubMed: 2390939]
104.
Falkenberg M Metabolic control and amputations among diabetics in primary health care-a population-based intensified programme governed by patient education. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1990;8:25–9. [PubMed: 2356370]
105.
Fischer U, Salzsieder E, Menzel R, et al Primary health care of diabetic patients in a specialized outpatient setting: a DIABCARE-based analysis. Diabete Metab. 1993;19:188–94. [PubMed: 8314425]
106.
Fox A Defining and implementing intensive diabetes management: a pilot study. Can J Diabetes Care. 1995;19:14–20.
107.
Halbert RJ, Leung KM, Nichol JM, Legorreta AP Effect of multiple patient reminders in improving diabetic retinopathy screening: A randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:752–5. [PubMed: 10332676]
108.
Hellman R, Regan J, Rosen H Effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the risk of death or renal failure in NIDDM and IDDM. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:258–64. [PubMed: 9051368]
109.
Hoskins P, Alford J, Fowler P, et al Outpatient stabilization programme -an innovative approach in the management of diabetes. Diabetes Res. 1985;2:85–8. [PubMed: 3899465]
110.
Lorenz RA, Pichert JW, Enns SJ, Hanson SL Impact of organizational interventions on the delivery of patient education in a diabetes clinic. Patient Educ Couns. 1986;8:115–23. [PubMed: 10277393]
111.
Miller L, Goldstein J More efficient care of diabetic patients in a county hospital setting. N Engl J Med. 1972;286:1388–91. [PubMed: 5030023]
112.
Nordfeldt S, Jonsson D, Ludvigsson J Increasing response rate in data registration and follow-up of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a prospective population study 1992-97. Practical Diabetes Int. 1999;16:101–6.
113.
Ollendorf DA, Kotsanos JG, Wishner WJ, et al Potential economic benefits of lower-extremity amputation prevention strategies in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1240–5. [PubMed: 9702427]
114.
Overland J, Mira M, Yue DK Diabetes management: shared care or shared neglect. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1999;44:123–8. [PubMed: 10414931]
115.
Porter AM Organisation of diabetic care. Br Med J. 1982;285:–. [PMC free article: PMC1500095] [PubMed: 6812777]
116.
Scheffler RM, Feuchtbaum LB, Phibbs CS Prevention: the cost-effectiveness of the California Diabetes and Pregnancy Program. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:168–75. [PMC free article: PMC1694303] [PubMed: 1739141]
117.
Smith SA, Murphy ME, Huschka T, et al Impact of a diabetes electronic management system on the care of patients seen in a subspecialty diabetes clinic. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:972–6. [PubMed: 9614616]
118.
Solberg LI, Reger LA, Pearson TL, et al Using continuous quality improvement to improve diabetes care in populations: the IDEAL model: Improving care for diabetics through Empowerment Active Collaboration and Leadership. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1997;23:581–92. [PubMed: 9407262]
119.
Stuart ME Redefining boundaries in the financing and care of diabetes: the Maryland experience. Milbank Q. 1994;72:679–94. [PubMed: 7997223]
120.
Visser AP, Schouten JA, van der Veen EA, van den Boogaard PR Benefits of intensive treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes patients: the importance of patient education. Patient Educ Couns. 1989;14:21–9. [PubMed: 10294789]
121.
Weinberger M, Smith DM, Katz BP, Moore PS The cost-effectiveness of intensive postdischarge care: a randomized trial. Med Care. 1988;26:1092– 102. [PubMed: 2846971]
122.
Wilczynski J, Cypryk K, Zawodniak-Szalapska M, et al The role of staged diabetes management in improving diabetes care in Poland. Practical Diabetes Int. 1999;16:137–41.
123.
York R, Brown LP, Samuels P, et al A randomised trial of early discharge and nurse specialist transitional follow-up care of high-risk childbearing women. Nurs Res. 1997;46:254–61. [PubMed: 9316597]
124.
Elixhauser A, Weschler JM, Kitzmiller JL, et al Cost-benefit analysis of preconception care for women with established diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1993;16:1146–57. [PubMed: 8375245]
125.
McCulloch DK, Price MJ, Hindmarsh M, Wagner EH Improvement in diabetes care using an integrated population-based approach in a primary care setting. Dis Manag. 2000;3:75–82.
126.
Institute for Clinical Systems Integration Technology assessment: care management for chronic illness, the frail elderly, and acute myocardial infarction, Bloomington, MN. Institute for Clinical Systems Integration (ICSI)1998. –.
127.
Ward MD, Rieve JA The role of case management in disease management In: Todd WE, Nash E, eds. Disease management: a systems approach to improving patient outcomes, Chicago, IL. American Hospital Publishing1997. 235–59.
128.
American Geriatric Society Public Policy Committee Care management. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:429–30. [PubMed: 1901327]
129.
Holloway F, Oliver N, Collins E, Carson J Case management: a critical review of the outcome literature. Eur Psychiatry. 1995;10:113–28. [PubMed: 19698326]
130.
Brass-Mynderse NJ Disease management for chronic congestive heart failure. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 1996;11:54–62. [PubMed: 9069031]
131.
Bernabei R, Landi F, Gambassi G, et al Randomised trial of impact of model of integrated care and case management for older people living in the community. Br Med J. 1998;316:1348–51. [PMC free article: PMC28532] [PubMed: 9563983]
132.
Naylor MD, Brooten D, Campbell R, et al Comprehensive discharge planning and home follow-up of hospitalized elders; a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 1999;281:613–20. [PubMed: 10029122]
133.
Fitzgerald JF, Smith DM, Martin DK, Freedman JA, Katz BP A case manager intervention to reduce readmissions. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154: 1721–9. [PubMed: 8042889]
134.
Wagner EH More than a case manager. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:654–6. [PubMed: 9786814]
135.
Whitlock WL, Brown A, Moore K, et al Telemedicine improved diabetic management. Mil Med. 2000;165:579–84. [PubMed: 10957848]
136.
Weinberger M, Kirkman MS, Samsa GP, et al A nurse-coordinated intervention for primary care patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: impact on glycemic control and health-related quality of life. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:59–66. [PubMed: 7730940]
137.
Caravalho JY, Saylor CR Continuum of care: An evaluation of a nurse case-managed program for children with diabetes. Pediatr Nurs. 2000;26: 296–300,328. [PubMed: 12026393]
138.
Humphry J, Jameson LM, Beckham S Overcoming social and cultural barriers to care for patients with diabetes. West J Med. 1997;167:138–44. [PMC free article: PMC1304512] [PubMed: 9308405]
139.
Day JL, Metcalfe J, Johnson P Benefits provided by an integrated education and clinical diabetes centre: a follow-up study. Diabet Med. 1992;9:855–9. [PubMed: 1473327]
140.
Giordano B, Rosenbloom AL, Heller D, Weber FT, Gonzalez R, Grgic A Regional services for children and youth with diabetes. Pediatrics. 1977;60:493–8. [PubMed: 409987]
141.
Lowes L Evaluation of a paediatric diabetes specialist nurse post. Br J Nurs. 1997;6:625–6, 628-33. [PubMed: 9250069]
142.
Edelstein EL, Cesta TG Nursing case management: an innovative model of care for hospitalized patients with diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 1993;19: 517–21. [PubMed: 8156866]
143.
Ginn M, Frate DA, Keys L A community-based case management model for hypertension and diabetes. J Miss State Med Assoc. 1999;40:226–8. [PubMed: 10431502]
144.
Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Henderson WG Does increased access to primary care reduce hospital readmissions? Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Primary Care and Hospital Readmission. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1441–7. [PubMed: 8618584]
145.
Peters AL, Davidson MB, Ossorio RC Management of patients with diabetes by nurses with support of subspecialists. HMO Pract. 1995;9:8–13. [PubMed: 10141351]
146.
Lorber D What works? The Diabetes Care and Information Center Diabet Med 1998. 15(suppl 4)S24–7. [PubMed: 9868988]
147.
Beyerman K Casefinder program IDs 1,500 at risk for diabetes. Hosp Case Manag. 1999;7:204–6.
148.
American Diabetes Association American Diabetes Association: clinical practice recommendations 2001 Diabetes Care 2001. 24(suppl 1)S1–S133. [PubMed: 11403001]
149.
Wagner EH Care of older people with chronic illness In: Calkins E, Boult C, Wagner EH, Pacala JT, eds. New ways to care for older people, New York, NY. Springer Publishing1998. 39–64.
150.
Wagner EH, Davis C, Schaefer J, Von Korff M, Austin B A survey of leading chronic disease management programs: are they consistent with the literature? Manag Care Q. 1999;7:56–66. [PubMed: 10620960]
151.
Cabana MD, Rand CS, Power NR, et al Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282:1458–65. [PubMed: 10535437]
152.
Roos LL, Sharp SM, Cohen MM Comparing clinical information with claims data: some similarities and differences. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:881–8. [PubMed: 1890430]
153.
O'Connor PJ, Rush WA, Pronk NP, Cherney LM Identifying diabetes mellitus or heart disease among health maintenance organization members: sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and cost of survey and database methods. Am J Manag Care. 1998;4:335–42. [PubMed: 10178496]
154.
Norris SL, Engelgau MM, Venkat Narayan KM Effectiveness of selfmanagement training in type 2 diabetes: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:561–87. [PubMed: 11289485]
155.
Bodenheimer T Disease management-promises and pitfalls. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1202–5. [PubMed: 10202174]

Appendix A: Summary Evidence Table Case Management

Image A4856-1.jpg
Image A4856-2.jpg
Image A4856-3.jpg
Image A4856-4.jpg
Image A4856-5.jpg
Image A4856-6.jpg
Image A4856-7.jpg
Image A4856-8.jpg

GHb (including hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]) describes a series of hemoglobin components formed from hemoglobin and glucose, and the blood level reflects glucose levels over the past 120 days (the life span of the red blood cell).

Type 1 diabetes, previously called insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) or juvenile-onset diabetes, accounts for 5% to 10% of all diagnosed cases of diabetes and is believed to have an autoimmune and genetic basis. Type 2 diabetes was previously called non-insulindependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) or adult-onset diabetes. Risk factors for type 2 include obesity, family history, history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, physical inactivity, and race/ ethnicity. (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet. 1998. Available at: www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/facts98.htm. Accessed January 10, 2002.)

Established Market Economies as defined by the World Bank are Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Channel Islands, Denmark, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, St. Pierre and Miquelon, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Footnotes

a

GHb (including hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]) describes a series of hemoglobin components formed from hemoglobin and glucose, and the blood level reflects glucose levels over the past 120 days (the life span of the red blood cell).

b

Type 1 diabetes, previously called insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) or juvenile-onset diabetes, accounts for 5% to 10% of all diagnosed cases of diabetes and is believed to have an autoimmune and genetic basis. Type 2 diabetes was previously called non-insulindependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) or adult-onset diabetes. Risk factors for type 2 include obesity, family history, history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, physical inactivity, and race/ ethnicity. (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet. 1998. Available at: www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/facts98.htm. Accessed January 10, 2002.)

c

Established Market Economies as defined by the World Bank are Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Channel Islands, Denmark, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, St. Pierre and Miquelon, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

PubReader format: click here to try

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...