(3.236.231.61) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/11 22:48
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:黃莉茵
研究生(外文):Li-Ying Huang
論文名稱:探討影響台灣成人糖尿病照護臨床治療慣性(Therapeutic inertia)之醫療提供者影響因素分析
論文名稱(外文):Therapeutic inertia among adult DM patients in Taiwan focusing on associated factors of health care provider
指導教授:蘇喜老師賴美淑老師
口試委員:楊銘欽老師張永源老師莊立民老師黃文鴻老師胡啟民老師
口試日期:2013-06-03
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:健康政策與管理研究所
學門:醫藥衛生學門
學類:公共衛生學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:中文
論文頁數:213
中文關鍵詞:糖尿病論質計酬方案糖化血色素檢驗值加強給藥臨床治療慣性醫療提供者之主要變量多層次分析法
外文關鍵詞:Diabetes Pay-for-Performance ProjectA1cintensify therapytherapeutic inertiathe variables of healthcare providersMulti-level analysis
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:825
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
目的
針對慢性疾病糖尿病的治療,即使目前的實證或臨床指引指出積極的藥品治療可以減緩或預防併發症的發生,但部分醫師卻未給予適當的藥品治療,將疾病 (如血糖) 控制在理想的範圍內。此研究的目的首先為以糖尿病論質計酬方案 (Diabetes Pay-for-Performance Project, DM-P4P) 次級資料研究,根據病人糖化血色素檢驗值 (A1c),進行處方箋降血糖藥品改變的分析,並針對「加強給藥 (intensify therapy)」作為台灣「臨床治療慣性 (therapeutic inertia)」的型態研究 (pattern analysis)。其次,針對醫療提供者之主要變量,分析未給予「加強給藥」之重要影響因素。並以多層次分析方法,檢視不同醫療機構之層級別是否與「臨床治療慣性」相關。第三為根據「臨床治療慣性」之不同型態追蹤與A1c之治療結果的相關性分析。
研究設計
第一部分為診療前後是否介入處方改變,研究設計為介入前後比較研究;第二部份為「加強給藥」與糖尿病之主要結果指標A1c的關係,研究設計為針對參加2006年至2008年糖尿病論質計酬方案之糖尿病個案之世代研究 (cohort study)。
資料來源
此研究主要聯結兩個大型的資料庫,包括2006至2008年全民健康保險申報總檔 (the regular NHI claims database) 及糖尿病論質計酬方案之VPN (Virtual Private Network) 資料檔案。
統計分析
使用描述性分析及羅吉斯迴歸分析個案特質與醫療提供者之主要變量對於「加強給藥」的影響及「加強給藥」與糖尿病之主要結果指標A1c的關係。並運用多層次分析法 (multi-level analysis),探討在糖尿病照護中,檢驗不同醫院、醫師間的差異如何影響「加強給藥 (intensify treatment)」之因素。
結果
診療前後是否介入處方改變
在2006年至2008年加入糖尿病論質計酬方案,共215,679位糖尿病個案;1,527,539次的A1c數值,其中,僅25.98%的A1c數值低於7%的控制目標。針對A1c數值介於7%至11%,共有168,876位糖尿病個案,年齡為18至80歲者及899,135次的A1c數值。當該次A1c大於7%小於等於11%時,38.5% (346,221 處方箋數) 在診療後未獲得「加強給藥」。在藥品使用分類部分,42.0 %的藥品處方被歸為A1c值介入後新增加品項。在影響「加強給藥」之羅吉斯迴歸分析部分,年齡小於40歲之糖尿病個案處方箋較大於65歲之糖尿病個案處方箋數獲得「加強給藥」的發生比的1.26倍 (p< 0.001),糖尿病嚴重度 (DCSI score) 低的個案處方箋數較DCSI高的個案處方箋數獲得「加強給藥」的發生比的0.46倍 (p<0.001),糖尿病A1c為7%至8%的個案處方箋較A1c為10%至11% (10%<A1c=<11%) 的個案較不易獲得「加強給藥」;在醫師層次特質中,不同的醫師的專科別會影響到是否會給予病人「加強給藥」;在醫療機構特質中,醫院之層級別醫學中心較基層診所在給予「加強給藥」發生比為1.175倍 (p<0.001)。運用階層線性模式分析對於個人層次、醫師層次與醫院層次的特質是否會影響糖尿病個案是否會得到「加強給藥」部分,茲將研究結果與討論敘述如下。在個人層次部份,研究結果顯示:
首先,共有899,024次糖尿病個案處方箋數資料,巢套於20,729位醫師及巢套於3,422間醫療機構。
(一) 糖尿病個案的特質會影響是否會得到「加強給藥」部分
個人層次變量對接受到「加強給藥」的解釋量R2為1.18%。男性較女性不易接受到「加強給藥」,當控制其他變量時,DCSI score為0分者較DCSI score為4分者在接受「加強給藥」的機會少56%;當個案的年齡少於65歲較年齡大於65歲者易接受到「加強給藥」;A1c小於等於8%者,接受到「加強給藥」的機會較A1c大於11%者少70%。
(二) 醫師層次特質中會影響是否會給予「加強給藥」部分
醫師層次變量對接受到「加強給藥」的解釋量R2為30.78%。醫師年資少於10年的醫師在給予個案「加強給藥」的機會較年資大於30年的醫師多158%,年資少於10年較年資大於30年較易給予個案「加強給藥」。在醫師專科別部份,心臟內科醫師較新陳代謝科醫師較不易給予個案「加強給藥」,但未達到統計上顯著的差異。
(三) 醫院層次特性會影響是否會給予「加強給藥」部分
醫院層次變量對接受到「加強給藥」的解釋量R2為18.97%。台北健保分局較南部健保分局不易給予個案「加強給藥」。當控制其他變量時,醫學中心較基層診所較易給予個案「加強給藥」多48.20%。
「加強給藥」與糖尿病之主要結果指標A1c的關係
共有41,948位病人,皆觀察6至18個月,且至少有兩次的A1c值。在糖尿病用藥部份,起始A1c時接受「加強給藥」者,占了28,306人 (67.5%)。且接受「加強給藥」較未給予「加強給藥」,經6至18個月觀察後,會使得「A1c治療結果大於9%」發生比為0.779倍,發生比小於1,具統計上顯著意義,(p< 0.001)。在A1c檢查次數部分,在6至18個月內,若病人的A1c檢查次數每增加一次,「A1c治療結果大於9%」的發生比為0.972倍(p<0.001)。接受「加強給藥」的病人,相較於未接受「加強給藥」的糖尿病個案,經6至18個月觀察後,照護結果A1c 數值改善0.131% (p< 0.001)。
結論
臨床慣性有多種來源,而且會受到病人與醫療提供者等主要相關因子影響。在病人因子包含:年齡、DCSI score、A1c。在醫療提供者等主要因子包括:醫師年資、專科別、醫院之層級別及健保分局別等。本研究提出一項可用以量測此現象的品質計量法。有趣的是,高的血糖數值的確是「加強給藥」一項重要的預測因子。另外,在此研究發現接受「加強給藥」的病人比較容易在血糖控制上達成較佳的預後結果。在品質的評估中,建立此等「過程」與「預後指標」間的關聯是一項相當重要的目標。這樣的關聯進一步證實此研究中的「加強給藥」計量法的效度,也暗示在此研究中已經捕捉到一個重要的照護面向。這些結果也凸顯欲改善醫療照護的介入方法應著重於臨床慣性此一問題。


Background
Empirical evidence and clinical guidelines related to the treatment of diabetes have indicated that aggressive drug therapy can mitigate or prevent the occurrence of complications; however, many physicians fail to prescribe appropriate drug therapy for control of the disease (such as blood glucose levels). This study is divided into three stages. Initially, we present analysis of secondary data related to the Diabetes Pay-for-Performance Project (DM-P4P). We used hemoglobin A1c (A1c) test values to identify variations in the prescription of hypoglycemic drugs. We then conducted pattern analysis on intensive therapy to elucidate the issue of therapeutic inertia in Taiwan and examined the variables of healthcare providers to analyze the factors associated with intensive therapy. Multi-level analysis was performed to determine whether the level of the medical institutions was correlated with therapeutic inertia. In the third stage, we conducted correlation analysis on the patterns of therapeutic inertia and the outcome of A1c.
Research Design
The first stage involved identifying changes in prescription patterns and conducting a comparison of prescriptions before and after A1c intervention. In the second stage, we determined the relationship between intensive therapy and the primary index of A1c. This involved a cohort study on diabetes patients that participated in DM-P4P from 2006 to 2008.
Data Source
We accessed two major databases: the regular NHI claims database from 2006 to 2008 and the virtual private network (VPN) of DM-P4P.
Statistical Analysis
This study employed descriptive analysis and logistic regression to determine the influence of variables related to primary healthcare provider on intensive therapy and the relationship between intensive therapy and the primary index of diabetes, A1c. Multi-level analysis was also conducted to examine whether different hospitals or physicians influenced intensive diabetes therapy.
Results
A total of 215,679 diabetes patients participated in DM-P4P between 2006 and 2008. Among the 1,527,539 A1c test results, only 25.98 % were less than 7%. We focused on the 168,876 diabetes patients presenting A1c values between 7% and 11%. The age of the study population ranged between 18 and 80, and 899,135 A1c values were included. Among patients with A1c values greater than 7% and equal to or less than 11%, 38.5% (346,221 visits) did not receive intensive therapy. Of the total drug prescriptions, 42.0 % were categorized as newly added drugs following A1c value intervention. In multivariate analysis of the factors related to intensive therapy, the odds ratio of a diabetes patient under 40 years of age receiving intensive therapy was 1.26 times that of a diabetes patient over 65 years of age (p< 0.001), and the odds ratio of patients scoring zero on the Diabetes Complications Severity Index (DCSI) receiving intensive therapy was 0.46 times that of patients scoring 4 on the DCSI (p< 0.001). Diabetes patients with A1c of 7% to 8% were less likely to receive intensive therapy than patients with A1c values of 10% to 11% (10%<A1c=<11%). The specialization of physicians also influenced whether the patient was administered intensive therapy. The odds ratio of medical centers providing intensive therapy was 1.175 times that of primary clinics (p< 0.001). This study performed hierarchical linear analysis to determine whether characteristics at the individual level, the physician level, and the hospital institution level influenced the likelihood of diabetes patients undergoing intensive therapy. Our results and a brief discussion are as follows. In terms of the individual level, the study results indicate the following.
First, we obtained data from a total of 899,024 patient visits nested within 20,729 physicians nested within 3,422 medical institutes.
1. Influence of patient characteristics
Variability at the individual level presented explanatory power of R2 = 1.18 % for intensive therapy. Male diabetes patients were less likely to receive intensive therapy than female patients, and when other variables were controlled, patients with a DCSI score of 0 had a 56 % less chance of receiving intensive therapy than those with DCSI scores of 4. Patients under 65 years of age were more likely to receive intensive therapy than those over 65 years of age, and patients with A1c results less than or equal to 8 % were 70 % less likely to receive intensive therapy than those with A1c results greater than 11%.
2. Influence of physician level characteristics
Variability at the physician level presented explanatory power of R2 = 30.78 % for the intensive therapy provided. The odds ratio of physicians with less than 10 years of experience administering intensive therapy to patients was 158 % higher than that of those with over 30 years of experience; therefore, physicians with less than 10 years of experience were more likely to provide patients with intensive therapy than those with over 30 years of experience were. In terms of the specialty of the physician, cardiologists were less likely to administer intensive therapy to patients than endocrinologists were; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance.
3. Influence of medical institution level characteristics
Variability at the medical institution level presented explanatory power of R2 = 18.97 % for intensive therapy that was administered. The northern division of the Bureau of National Health Insurance (BNHI) of Taiwan was less likely than southern division to administer intensive therapy. When the other variables were controlled, medical centers were 48.20 % more likely than primary clinics to provide intensive therapy.
Regarding the effects of intensive therapy of hyperglycemia on A1c outcome in DM, a total of 41,948 patients were observed for 6 to 18 months and underwent at least two A1c tests. In terms of diabetes medication, 28,306 patients already undergoing intensive therapy after the index A1c test accounted for (67.5 %). After 6 to 18 months of observation, the odds ratio of a patient receiving intensive therapy obtaining an A1c result greater than 9% was 0.779 times that of a patient not receiving intensive therapy. This figure is less than 1 and thus statistically meaningful (p< 0.001). In the number of A1c tests taken, the odds ratio of a patient receiving an A1c result greater than 9% was 0.972 times for each additional A1c test taken (p<0.001). After 6 to 18 months of observation, the A1c results of patients undergoing intensive therapy were 0.131 % better than those of patients not undergoing intensive therapy (p< 0.001).
Conclusion
Therapeutic inertia for diabetes may arise from a number of sources; however, the primary factors are associated with the patient and the healthcare provider. Patient-related factors include age, the severity of diabetes (DCSI), and A1c value; factors related to the healthcare provider include the experience of the physician, their specialty, the level of the medical institution, and the BNHI division. This study proposed a practical approach to the measurement of quality in order to quantify therapeutic inertia. What is interesting is that high blood glucose levels are a crucial predictive factor of intensive therapy and patients receiving intensive therapy were more likely to achieve favorable prognostic outcome in the control of blood glucose. In the evaluation of quality, establishing a connection between the process and the prognostic indicator is crucial. Such a connection verifies the validity of this intensive therapy measurement and also implies that this study has captured a vital aspect of healthcare. These results also emphasize the importance of considering the issue of therapeutic inertia when implementing intensive therapy as a means to improve medical treatment.

目錄
表目錄 viii
圖目錄 x
中文摘要 xi
英文摘要 xv
第一章 前言 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的及內容 4
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節 臨床治療慣性之文獻回顧 5
一、臨床治療慣性之發展與相關研究 5
二、在高血壓治療上臨床治療慣性的相關研究 6
三、血脂治療上臨床治療慣性的相關研究 7
第二節 臨床治療慣性於糖尿病治療上的相關研究 7
第三節 影響臨床治療慣性的成因及社會因素之文獻回顧 10
一、病人特性與臨床治療慣性的相關研究 10
二、醫療提供者與臨床治療慣性的相關論點與研究之文獻回顧 11
第四節 臨床治療慣性的操作性定義之相關性研究 15
第五節 臨床治療慣性與照護結果之相關性研究 17
第六節 臨床治療慣性與照護品質測量之相關性研究 17
第七節 藥品WHO ATC/DDD系統分類 22
第八節 多層次分析方法 24
第三章 研究材料與方法 30
壹、A1c診療前後是否介入處方改變 30
第一節 研究設計 30
第二節 資料來源 30
一、研究資料檔來源 30
二、研究對象 31
三、資料處理流程 31
第三節 研究資料庫之建立 33
第四節 研究架構 35
第五節 研究變量定義與測量 39
第六節 統計方法 50
第一部分、研究假說 50
第二部份、統計方法 50
貳、「加強給藥」與糖尿病之主要結果指標A1c的關係 58
第一節 研究設計 58
第二節 資料來源 58
一、研究資料檔來源 58
二、研究對象 58
三、資料處理流程 58
第三節 研究資料庫之建立 59
第四節 研究架構 61
第五節 研究變量定義與測量 65
第六節 統計方法 69
第四章 研究結果 71
第一節 A1c診療前後有處方改變之介入 71
一、「糖化血色素檢驗資料檔」研究樣本描述性分析 71
二、A1c診療前後是否有處方改變的分析 83
三、影響「加強給藥」之相關影響因素分析 88
四、以多層次分析方法檢視醫療機構層級別是否與「加強給藥」相關性分析 131
五、「臨床治療慣性」與「加強給藥」的關係 138
第二節「加強給藥」與糖尿病之後續A1c結果之追蹤分析 140
一、2006年至2008年P4P糖尿病世代研究之個案描述性分析 140
二、世代追蹤與後續治療結果A1c的相關性分析 148
(一)、後續治療結果A1c值將分成3組照護結果 148
(二)、P4P糖尿病世代追蹤是否加強給藥之分析 150
(三)、後續治療結果A1c變化與「加強給藥」之單變量分析 152
(四)、後續治療結果A1c變化與「加強給藥」之羅吉斯迴歸分析 161
(五)、依變項為連續變量「last A1c check與index A1c check之差異」之複線性迴歸分析 (multiple linear regression) 結果 174
第五章 討論 178
第一節 A1c診療前後是否介入處方改變與臨床治療慣性 178
一、針對「加強給藥」作為台灣「臨床治療慣性」的型態研究 (pattern analysis) 178
二、針對醫療提供者之主要變量,分析未給予「加強給藥」之重要影響因素 180
三、以多層次分析方法檢視不同醫療機構之層級別是否與「臨床治療慣性」相關性 184
第二節「加強給藥」與糖尿病之主要結果指標A1c的關係 187
第三節 研究限制 189
第六章 結論與建議 191
第一節 結論 191
第二節 建議 192
參考文獻 193
附錄 204


1.Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, et al. Global Prevalence of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004; 27(5): 1047-1053.
2.Wong KC, Wang Z. Prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus of Chinese populations in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2006; 73(2): 126-134.
3.Association AD. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2013. Diabetes Care 2013; 36(Suppl 1): S11-S66.
4.Standards of Medical Care for Patients With Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 2003; 26(suppl 1): s33-s50.
5.NICE clinical guideline 66 - Type 2 diabetes: the management of type 2 diabetes. (accessed 20130328). Available from : http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG66diabetesfullguideline.pdf
6.NICE. CG87 Type 2 Diabetes - newer agents (partial update of CG66) (CG87). (accessed 20130328). Available from : http://www.nice.org.uk/CG87.
7.Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Patient-Centered Approach: Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 2012; 35(6): 1364-1379.
8.Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 2012; 35(6): 1364-1379.
9.Canadian Diabetes Association 2008 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Canadian Journal of Diabetes. 2008; 32 (Sup 1). S53-62. (accessed 20130328). Available from : http://www.diabetes.ca/files/cpg2008/cpg-2008.pdf. .
10.蕭淑華, 歐弘毅, 吳達仁. 增泌素(Incretin)類藥物治療第2型糖尿病之臨床實證. 內科學誌 2007; (18卷4期): 6.
11.McEwen LN, Bilik D, Johnson SL, et al. Predictors and impact of intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy in type 2 diabetes: translating research into action for diabetes (TRIAD). Diabetes Care 2009; 32(6): 971-976.
12.Heine RJ, Diamant M, Mbanya JC, et al. Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: the end of recurrent failure? BMJ 2006; 333(7580): 1200-1204.
13.糖尿病臨床照護指引 (初稿). 中華民國糖尿病學會; 2010. (accessed 20110628) Available from: http://www.endo-dm.org.tw/dia/dia_newsdetail.asp?id=202
14.Rodbard HW, Jellinger PS, Davidson JA, et al. Statement by an American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology consensus panel on type 2 diabetes mellitus: an algorithm for glycemic control. Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2009; 15(6): 540-559.
15.BARI 2D Study Group, Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, Hardison RM, Kelsey SF, MacGregor JM, Orchard TJ, Chaitman BR, Genuth SM, Goldberg SH, Hlatky MA, Jones TL, Molitch ME, Nesto RW, Sako EY, Sobel BE. A Randomized Trial of Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes and Coronary Artery Disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2009; 360(24): 2503-2515.
16.Saaddine JB, Engelgau MM, Beckles GL, Gregg EW, Thompson TJ, Narayan KMV. A Diabetes Report Card for the United States: Quality of Care in the 1990s. Annals of Internal Medicine 2002; 136(8): 565-574.
17.Phillips LS, Branch WT, Cook CB, et al. Clinical Inertia. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001; 135(9): 825-834.
18.Andrade SE, Gurwitz JH, Field TS, et al. Hypertension management: the care gap between clinical guidelines and clinical practice. American Journal of Managed Care 2004; 10(7): 481-486.
19.Okonofua EC, Simpson KN, Jesri A, et al. Therapeutic inertia is an impediment to achieving the Healthy People 2010 blood pressure control goals. Hypertension 2006; 47(3): 345-351.
20.Allen JD, Curtiss FR, Fairman KA. Nonadherence, clinical inertia, or therapeutic inertia? Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy 2009; 15(8): 690-695.
21.Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Glickman M, et al. Developing a quality measure for clinical inertia in diabetes care. Health Services Research 2005; 40(6 Pt 1): 1836-1853.
22.Banta HD. Minimally invasive surgery. Implications for hospitals, health workers, and patients. British Medical Journal 1993; 135(9): 825-834.
23.Eisenberg JM. Doctor''s Decisions and the Cost of Medical Care. The Reasons for Doctors'' Practice and Ways to Change Them. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Pr; 1986.
24.Howard G, Anderson RT, Russell G, et al. Race, socioeconomic status, and cause-specific mortality. Annals of Epidemiology 2000; 10: 214-223.
25.Yusuf HR, Giles WH, Croft JB, et al. Impact of multiple risk factor profiles on determining cardiovascular disease risk. Preventive Medicine 1998; 27: 1-9.
26.Davis RM, Wagner EH, Groves T. Managing chronic disease [Editorial]. British Medical Journal 1999; 318: 1090-1091.
27.Harris MI. Health care and health status and outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 754-758.
28.Burt VL, Whelton P, Roccella EJ, et al. Prevalence of Hypertension in the US Adult Population : Results From the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1991. Hypertension 1995; 25(3): 305-313.
29.GGiles WH, Anda RF, Jones DH, et al. Recent trends in the identification and treatment of high blood cholesterol by physicians. Progress and missed opportunities. The Journal of the American Medical Association 1993; 269: 1133-1138.
30.Harris MI, Flegal KM, Cowie CC, et al. Prevalence of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance in U.S. adults. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 518-524.
31.Harris MI, Eastman RC, Cowie CC, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in glycemic control of adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 403-408.
32.McBride P, Schrott HG, Plane MB, et al. Primary Care Practice Adherence to National Cholesterol Education Program Guidelines for Patients With Coronary Heart Disease. Archives of Internal Medicine 1998; 158(11): 1238-1244.
33.Pearson TA, Laurora I, Chu H, et al. The lipid treatment assessment project (L-TAP): a multicenter survey to evaluate the percentages of dyslipidemic patients receiving lipid-lowering therapy and achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals. Archives of Internal Medicine 2000; 160: 459-467.
34.Pearson TA, Laurora I, Chu H, et al. The Lipid Treatment Assessment Project (L-TAP): A Multicenter Survey to Evaluate the Percentages of Dyslipidemic Patients Receiving Lipid-Lowering Therapy and Achieving Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Goals. Archives of Internal Medicine 2000; 160(4): 459-467.
35.Bolen SD, Bricker E, Samuels TA, et al. Factors associated with intensification of oral diabetes medications in primary care provider-patient dyads: a cohort study. Diabetes Care 2009; 32(1): 25-31.
36.Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Hickey EC, et al. Inadequate Management of Blood Pressure in a Hypertensive Population. New England Journal of Medicine 1998; 339(27): 1957-1963.
37.Crowley MJ, Smith VA, Olsen MK, et al. Treatment intensification in a hypertension telemanagement trial: clinical inertia or good clinical judgment? Hypertension 2011; 58(4): 552-558.
38.Becker DM, Raqueño JV, Yook RM, et al. Nurse-mediated cholesterol management compared with enhanced primary care in siblings of individuals with premature coronary disease. Archives of Internal Medicine 1998; 158: 1533-1539.
39.El-Kebbi IM, Ziemer DC, Musey VC, et al. Diabetes in urban African-Americans. IX. Provider adherence to management protocols. Diabetes Care 1997; 20(5): 698-703.
40.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(9): 1494-1500.
41.Ziemer DC, Miller CD, Rhee MK, et al. Clinical inertia contributes to poor diabetes control in a primary care setting. The Diabetes Educator 2005; 31(4): 564-571.
42.Phillips LS, Ziemer DC, Doyle JP, et al. An endocrinologist-supported intervention aimed at providers improves diabetes management in a primary care site: improving primary care of African Americans with diabetes (IPCAAD) 7. Diabetes Care 2005; 28(10): 2352-2360.
43.Yood MU, Lafata JE, Koro C, et al. Time to pharmacotherapy change in response to elevated HbA1c test results. Current Medical Research and Opinion 2006; 22(8): 1567-1574.
44.Wetzler HP, Snyder JW. Linking pharmacy and laboratory data to assess the appropriateness of care in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23(11): 1637-1641.
45.O''Connor PJ, Sperl-Hillen JM, Johnson PE, Rush WA, Biltz G. Clinical inertia and outpatient medical errors. April 2005. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available From: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/ advances/vol2/OConnor.pdf. (Accessed September 01, 2012). 2005: 293-308.
46.Williams MV, Baker DW, Parker RM, et al. Relationship of Functional Health Literacy to Patients'' Knowledge of Their Chronic Disease: A Study of Patients With Hypertension and Diabetes. Archives of Internal Medicine 1998; 158(2): 166-172.
47.Nicolucci A, Carinci F, Ciampi A. Stratifying Patients at Risk of Diabetic Complications: An integrated look at clinical, socioeconomic, and care-related factors. Diabetes Care 1998; 21(9): 1439-1444.
48.Handler J, Lackland DT. Translation of hypertension treatment guidelines into practice: a review of implementation. Journal of the American Society of Hypertension 2011; 5(4): 197-207.
49.Rodondi N, Peng T, Karter AJ, et al. Therapy modifications in response to poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. Annals of Internal Medicine 2006; 144(7): 475-484.
50.Brown JB, Nichols GA. Slow response to loss of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. The American Journal of Managed Care 2003; 9(3): 213-217.
51.De Berardis G, Pellegrini F, Franciosi M, et al. Quality of Care and Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetic Patients. Diabetes Care 2004; 27(2): 398-406.
52.Tabák AG, Tamás G, Zgibor J, et al. Targets and reality: a comparison of health care indicators in the U.S. (Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study) and Hungary (DiabCare Hungary). Diabetes Care 2000; 23(9): 1284-1289.
53.Shah BR, Hux JE, Laupacis A, et al. Clinical inertia in response to inadequate glycemic control: do specialists differ from primary care physicians? Diabetes Care 2005; 28(3): 600-606.
54.Oliveria SA, Lapuerta P, McCarthy BD, et al. Physician-Related Barriers to the Effective Management of Uncontrolled Hypertension. Archives of Internal Medicine 2002; 162(4): 413-420.
55.Choudhry NK, Fletcher RH, Soumerai SB. Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care. Annals of Internal Medicine 2005; 142(4): 260-273.
56.Beaulieu MD, Blais R, Jacques A, et al. Are patients suffering from stable angina receiving optimal medical treatment? QJM : Monthly Journal of The Association of Physicians 2001; 94(6): 301-308.
57.Gil-Guillén V, Orozco-Beltrán D, Márquez-Contreras E, et al. Is There a Predictive Profile for Clinical Inertia in Hypertensive Patients?: An Observational, Cross-Sectional, Multicentre Study. Drugs & Aging 2011; 28(12): 981-992 910.2165/11596640-000000000-000000000.
58.Redón J CA, Lázaro P, Aguilar MD, et al. Factors associated with therapeutic inertia in hypertension: validation of a predictive model. Journal of Hypertension 2010; 28(8): 1770-1777.
59.Bungard TJ, Ghali WA, Teo KK, et al. Why Do Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Not Receive Warfarin? Archives of Internal Medicine 2000; 160(1): 41-46.
60.Headrick LA, Speroff T, Pelecanos HI, et al. Efforts to Improve Compliance With the National Cholesterol Education Program Guidelines: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Archives of Internal Medicine 1992; 152(12): 2490-2496.
61.Hyman DJ, Pavlik VN. Self-reported Hypertension Treatment Practices Among Primary Care Physicians: Blood Pressure Thresholds, Drug Choices, and the Role of Guidelines and Evidence-Based Medicine. Archives of Internal Medicine 2000; 160(15): 2281-2286.
62.McPhee SJ, Richard RJ, Solkowitz SN. Performance of cancer screening in a university general internal medicine practice: comparison with the 1980 American Cancer Society Guidelines. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1986; 1(5): 275-281.
63.Leaf DA, Neighbor WE, Schaad D, et al. A comparison of self-report and chart audit in studying resident physician assessment of cardiac risk factors. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1995; 10(4): 194-198.
64.Drass J, Kell S, Osborn M, et al. Diabetes care for Medicare beneficiaries. Attitudes and behaviors of primary care physicians. Diabetes Care 1998; 21(8): 1282-1287.
65.Marcelino JJ, Feingold KR. Inadequate treatment with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors by health care providers. American Journal of Medicine 1996; 100(6): 605-610.
66.El-Kebbi IM, Ziemer DC, Gallina DL, et al. Diabetes in urban African-Americans. XV. Identification of barriers to provider adherence to management protocols. Diabetes Care 1999; 22(10): 1617-1620.
67.Sever PS. Blood pressure control for the hypertensive patient. American Journal of Hypertension 1997; 10(S5): 128S-130S.
68.Freis ED. Improving Treatment Effectiveness in Hypertension. Archives of Internal Medicine 1999; 159(21): 2517-2521.
69.Turner RC, Cull CA, Frighi V, et al. Glycemic Control With Diet, Sulfonylurea, Metformin, or Insulin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Journal of the American Medical Association 1999; 281(21): 2005-2012.
70.Hayward RA, Manning WG, Kaplan SH, et al. Starting Insulin Therapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. The Journal of the American Medical Association 1997; 278(20): 1663-1669.
71.Miller CD, Phillips LS, Tate MK, et al. Meeting American Diabetes Association guidelines in endocrinologist practice. Diabetes Care 2000; 23(4): 444-448.
72.Turchin A, Shubina M, Chodos AH, et al. Effect of board certification on antihypertensive treatment intensification in patients with diabetes mellitus. Circulation 2008; 117(5): 623-628.
73.van Bruggen R, Gorter K, Stolk R, et al. Clinical inertia in general practice: widespread and related to the outcome of diabetes care. Family Practice 2009; 26(6): 428-436.
74.The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The New England journal of medicine 1993; 329(14): 977-986.
75.Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998; 352(9131): 837-853.
76.Grant RW, Cagliero E, Murphy-Sheehy P, et al. Comparison of hyperglycemia, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia management in patients with type 2 diabetes. The American Journal of Medicine 2002; 112(8): 603-609.
77.Sperl-Hillen J, O''Connor PJ, Carlson RR, et al. Improving diabetes care in a large health care system: an enhanced primary care approach. The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement 2000; 26(11): 615-622.
78.Peterson KA, Hughes M. Readiness to change and clinical success in a diabetes educational program. The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice / American Board of Family Practice 2002; 15(4): 266-271.
79.Wagner EH. Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Effective clinical practice : ECP 1998; 1(1): 2-4.
80.Resource utilization and costs of care in the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes Care 1995; 18(11): 1468-1478.
81.Wagner EH, Davis C, Schaefer J, et al. A survey of leading chronic disease management programs: are they consistent with the literature? Managed Care Quarterly 1999; 7(3): 56-66.
82.American Diabetes Association. Clinical practice recommendations 2003. Diabetes Care 2003; 26(suppl 1): s1-s156.
83.Petitti DB, Grumbach K. Variation in physicians'' recommendations about revisit interval for three common conditions. The Journal of Family Practice 1993; 37(3): 235-240.
84.Von Korff M, Gruman J, Schaefer J, et al. Collaborative management of chronic illness. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997; 127(12): 1097-1102.
85.Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. The Milbank quarterly 1996; 74(4): 511-544.
86.De Jaegher K, Jegers M. The physician-patient relationship as a game of strategic information transmission. Health economics 2001; 10(7): 651-668.
87.Young RJ, Khong CK, Vaughan NJ, New J, Roxburgh M. The evolution of diabetes information systems. Diabetic Medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association 2002; 19 Suppl 4: 6-12.
88.Montori VM, Dinneen SF, Gorman CA, et al. The Impact of Planned Care and a Diabetes Electronic Management System on Community-Based Diabetes Care: The Mayo Health System Diabetes Translation Project. Diabetes Care 2002; 25(11): 1952-1957.
89.Meigs JB, Cagliero E, Dubey A, et al. A controlled trial of web-based diabetes disease management: the MGH diabetes primary care improvement project. Diabetes Care 2003; 26(3): 750-757.
90.Tierney WM, Overhage JM, Murray MD, et al. Effects of computerized guidelines for managing heart disease in primary care. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2003; 18(12): 967-976.
91.O'' Connor PJ, Solberg LI, Whitebird RR, et al. The impact of clinic and medical group characteristics on diabetes care outcomes in primary care clinics. Paper presented at the American Diabetes Association’s 64th Scientific Sessions; 2004; Orlando, FL.
92.Hellinger FJ. Regulating the financial incentives facing physicians in managed care plans. The American Journal of Managed Care 1998; 4(5): 663-674.
93.Solberg LI, Brekke ML, Fazio CJ, et al. Lessons from experienced guideline implementers: attend to many factors and use multiple strategies. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement 2000; 26(4): 171-188.
94.Helseth LD, Susman JL, Crabtree BF, et al. Primary care physicians'' perceptions of diabetes management. A balancing act. The Journal of Family Practice 1999; 48(1): 37-42.
95.Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC Index with DDDs 2011. WHO: Oslo, 2011.Available from http://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/?code=A10BX&showdescription=no (accessed 20130328).
96.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD Methodology. Available from http://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_methodology/history/ (accessed 20130328).
97.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD Methodology. Use of ATC/DDD. Available from http://www.whocc.no/use_of_atc_ddd/ (accessed 20130328).
98.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD Methodology. Structure and principles. Available from http://www.whocc.no/atc/structure_and_principles/ (accessed 20130328).
99.Robinson W S. Ecological correlations and the behaviour of individuals. American Sociological Review 1950; 15: 351-357.
100.溫福星、邱皓政. 多層次模式方法論--階層線性模式的關鍵問題與試解 (2012) Methodology of Multilevel Modeling: The Key Issues and Solutions of Hierarchical Linear Modeling. 前程文化. 出版日期:2012年05月04日. ISBN:9789866264610.
101.謝俊義. HLM多層次線性分析:理論、方法與實務.臺北市:鼎茂圖書; 2010.
102.Rice N, Leyland A. Multilevel models: applications to health data. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 1996; 1(3): 154-164.
103.Duncan C, Jones K, Moon G. Context, composition and heterogeneity: using multilevel models in health research. Social Science & Medicine 1998; 46(1): 97-117.
104.Myers RH. Classical and modern regression with applications. Boston: Duxbury/Thompson Learning, 1990; 1990.
105.Austin P, Tu J, Alter D. Comparing hierarchical modeling with traditional logistic regression analysis among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: Should we be analyzing cardiovascular outcomes data differently? American Heart Journal 2003; 145(1): 27 - 35.
106.O''Connell Ann A MDB. Multilevel modeling of educational data [electronic resource]. In: Information Age Pub Inc; 2008.
107.溫福星, 邱皓政. 多層次模型方法論:階層線性模式的關鍵議題與試解. 臺大管理論叢 2009; 19(2): 263-293.
108.Bliese PD, Halverson RR. Group Size and Measures of Group-Level Properties: An Examination of Eta-Squared and ICC Values. Journal of Management 1998; 24(2): 157-172.
109.Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. In: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc Inc; 1988.
110.Siddiqui O, Hedeker D, Flay BR, Hu FB. Intraclass correlation estimates in a school-based smoking prevention study. Outcome and mediating variables, by sex and ethnicity. American Journal of Epidemiology 1996; 144(4): 425-433.
111.Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. Chapter 16. Models with nested and crossed random effects. College Station, Tex.: Stata Press Publication; 2012.
112.Gavin MB, Hofmann DA. Using hierarchical linear modeling to investigate the moderating influence of leadership climate. The Leadership Quarterly 2002; 13(1): 15-33.
113.Hofmann DA. An Overview of the Logic and Rationale of Hierarchical Linear Models. Journal of Management 1997; 23(6): 723-744.
114.婁文信, 蘇聖珠, 王如鈺, 李政達. 顧客滿意與其前置變項之多層次分析. 顧客滿意學刊 2012; 8(2): 145-182.
115.Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical linear models : applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002.
116.Bingenheimer JB, Raudenbush SW. Statistical and substantive inferences in public health: issues in the application of multilevel models. Annual Review of Public Health 2004; 25: 53-77.
117.Diez-Roux AV. Multilevel analysis in public health research. Annual Review of Public Health 2000; 21: 171-192.
118.Hux JE, Ivis F, Flintoft V, et al. Diabetes in Ontario. Diabetes Care 2002; 25(3): 512-516.
119.Lu F-H, Yang Y-C, Wu J-S, et al. A population-based study of the prevalence and associated factors of diabetes mellitus in southern Taiwan. Diabetic Medicine 1998; 15(7): 564-572.
120.Lin CC, Lai MS, Syu CY, et al. Accuracy of Diabetes Diagnosis in Health Insurance Claims Data in Taiwan. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association 2005; 104(3): 157-163. .
121.Chen TT, Chung KP, Lin IC, et al. The unintended consequence of Diabetes Mellitus pay-for-performance program in Taiwan: are patients with more comorbidities or more severe conditions likely to be excluded from the P4P program. Health Services Research 2011; 46: 47-60.
122.Selby JV, Uratsu CS, Fireman B, et al. Treatment intensification and risk factor control: toward more clinically relevant quality measures. Medical Care 2009; 47(4): 395-402.
123.Kerr EA, Smith DM, Hogan MM, et al. Building a better quality measure: are some patients with ''poor quality'' actually getting good care? Medical Care 2003; 41(10): 1173-1182.
124.Meduru P, Helmer D, Rajan M, et al. Chronic Illness with Complexity: Implications for Performance Measurement of Optimal Glycemic Control. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2007; 22(Suppl 3): 408-418.
125.Rosenzweig JL, Weinger K, Poirier-Solomon L, et al. Use of a disease severity index for evaluation of healthcare costs and management of comorbidities of patients with diabetes mellitus. The American Journal of Managed Care 2002; 8(11): 950-958.
126.Young GJ. Can multi-level research help us design pay-for-performance programs? Medical Care 2008; 46(2): 109-111.
127.Young BA, Lin E, Von Korff M, et al. Diabetes Complications Severity Index and Risk of Mortality, Hospitalization, and Healthcare Utilization. American Journal of Managed Care 2008; 14(1): 15-24.
128.Hosmer DW Jr, S L. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York. In: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2000.
129.Hu FB, Goldberg J, Hedeker D, Flay BR, Pentz MA. Comparison of population-averaged and subject-specific approaches for analyzing repeated binary outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology 1998; 147(7): 694-703.
130.Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986; 73: 13-22.
131.McCullagh P, Nelder JA. Generalized linear models. 2nd ed. In: London;New York : Chapman and Hall, 1989.
132.Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE; 1999.
133.Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: SAGE; 2012.
134.Grant RW, Cagliero E, Dubey AK, et al. Clinical inertia in the management of Type 2 diabetes metabolic risk factors. Diabetic Medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association 2004; 21(2): 150-155.
135.Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, et al. Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus Algorithm for the Initiation and Adjustment of Therapy: A consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006; 29(8): 1963-1972.
136.Pani LN, Nathan DM, Grant RW. Clinical predictors of disease progression and medication initiation in untreated patients with type 2 diabetes and A1C less than 7%. Diabetes Care 2008; 31(3): 386-390.
137.Parchman ML, Pugh JA, Romero RL, et al. Competing demands or clinical inertia: the case of elevated glycosylated hemoglobin. Annals of Family Medicine 2007; 5(3): 196-201.
138.Grant R, Adams AS, Trinacty CM, et al. Relationship between patient medication adherence and subsequent clinical inertia in type 2 diabetes glycemic management. Diabetes Care 2007; 30(4): 807-812.
139.Grant RW, Buse JB, Meigs JB. Quality of diabetes care in U.S. academic medical centers: low rates of medical regimen change. Diabetes Care 2005; 28(2): 337-442.
140.AB E, Denig P, van Vliet T, et al. Reasons of general practitioners for not prescribing lipid-lowering medication to patients with diabetes: a qualitative study. BMC Family Practice 2009; 10: 24.
141.Grol R. Improving the quality of medical care: building bridges among professional pride, payer profit, and patient satisfaction. The Journal of the American Medical Association 2001; 286(20): 2578-2585.
142.Kassirer JP. The quality of care and the quality of measuring it. The New England Journal of Medicine 1993; 329(17): 1263-1265.
143.Smart NA, Titus TT. Outcomes of early versus late nephrology referral in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review. American Journal of Medicine 2011; 124(11): 1073-1080 e1072.
144.Hicks PC, Westfall JM, Van Vorst RF, et al. Action or inaction? Decision making in patients with diabetes and elevated blood pressure in primary care. Diabetes Care 2006; 29(12): 2580-2585.
145.Winkelmayer WC, Owen WF, Jr, Levin R, et al. A propensity analysis of late versus early nephrologist referral and mortality on dialysis. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2003; 14(2): 486-492.
146.Figueiras A, Caamano F, Gestal-Otero JJ. Influence of physician''s education, drug information and medical-care settings on the quality of drugs prescribed. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2000; 56(9-10): 747-753.
147.Forsetlund L, Bjorndal A, Rashidian A, et al. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online) 2009; (2): CD003030.
148.Suraci C, Mulas F, Rossi MC, et al. Management of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes: what are the attitudes of physicians? A SUBITO!AMD survey on the early diabetes treatment in Italy. Acta Diabetologica 2012; 49(6): 429-433.
149.Huebschmann AG, Mizrahi T, Soenksen A, et al. Reducing clinical inertia in hypertension treatment: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Hypertension (Greenwich, Conn) 2012; 14(5): 322-329.
150.Pal K, Eastwood SV, Michie S, et al. Computer-based diabetes self-management interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013; Mar 28;3:CD008776. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008776.pub2.
151.Johnston C, Ponsonby E. Northwest Herts diabetic management system. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 2000; 62(3): 177-189.
152.黃憶玫, 張慈桂. 糖尿病照護成效與影響因素之探討:以台東某區域醫院糖尿病共同照護網為例. 臺灣公共衛生雜誌 2011; 30(1): 19-28.
153.Lee YC. A Comparative Study of the Quality Monitoring of Diabetes Care among Medical Institutes in Taiwan. Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health: Science and Technology Development Project, 2004. Project number DOH93-HP-1103. Taipei: Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. (Taiwan), 2004. [In Chinese].
154.賴美淑,邱淑媞.糖尿病共同照護之概念與內涵.臺灣醫學 2002; 6(4): 560-568.
155.Cho S. Using multilevel analysis in patient and organizational outcomes research. Nursing Research 2003; 52(1): 61-65.
156.Larsen K, Merlo J. Appropriate assessment of neighborhood effects on individual health: integrating random and fixed effects in multilevel logistic regression. American Journal of Epidemiology 2005; 161(1): 81-88.
157.Larsen K, Petersen J, Budtz-Jorgensen E, et al. Interpreting parameters in the logistic regression model with random effects. Biometrics 2000; 56(3): 909-914.
158.Handelsman Y, Jellinger PS. Overcoming obstacles in risk factor management in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn) 2011; 13(8): 613-620.
159.Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998; 352(9131): 854-865.
160.Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Hickey EC, et al. Hypertension management in patients with diabetes: the need for more aggressive therapy. Diabetes Care 2003; 26(2): 355-359.
161.WHO Adherence to Long Term Therapies Project.Adherence to Long-term Therapies:Evidence for Action. Geneva:World Health Organization, 2003.
162.Lau DT, Nau DP.Oral antihyperglycemic medication nonadherence and subsequent hospitalization among individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004; 27(9): 2149-2153.
163.Parris ES, Lawrence DB, Mohn LA, et al. Adherence to statin therapy and LDL cholesterol goal attainment by patients with diabetes and dyslipidemia. Diabetes Care 2005; 28(3): 595-599.
164.Pladevall M, Williams LK, Potts LA, et al. Clinical outcomes and adherence to medications measured by claims data in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004; 27(12): 2800-2805.
165.Schectman JM, Nadkarni MM, Voss JD. The association between diabetes metabolic control and drug adherence in an indigent population. Diabetes Care 2002; 25(6): 1015-1021.
166.van Bruggen R, Gorter K, Stolk RP, et al. Refill adherence and polypharmacy among patients with type 2 diabetes in general practice. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2009; 18(11): 983-991.
167.Cramer JA. A systematic review of adherence with medications for diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004; 27(5): 1218-1224.
168.Nicolucci A, Carinci F, Ciampi A. Stratifying patients at risk of diabetic complications: an integrated look at clinical, socioeconomic, and care-related factors. SID-AMD Italian Study Group for the Implementation of the St. Vincent Declaration. Diabetes Care 1998; 21(9): 1439-1444.
169.McDermott MM, Schmitt B, Wallner E. Impact of Medication Nonadherence on Coronary Heart Disease Outcomes: A Critical Review. Archives of Internal Medicine 1997; 157(17): 1921-1929.
170.Javors JR, Bramble JE. Uncontrolled chronic disease: patient non-compliance or clinical mismanagement? Disease management 2003; 6(3): 169-178.
171.Haynes RB, Ackloo E, Sahota N, et al. Interventions for enhancing medication adherence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online) 2008;(2):CD000011.
172.Avorn J. Improving drug use in elderly patients: getting to the next level. The Journal of the American Medical Association 2001; 286(22): 2866-2868.
173.Shekelle PG, Kahan JP, Bernstein SJ, et al. The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures. The New England Journal of Medicine 1998; 338(26): 1888-1895.
174.Piette JD, Heisler M, Wagner TH. Problems paying out-of-pocket medication costs among older adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004; 27(2): 384-391.
175.Ziemer DC, Doyle JP, Barnes CS, et al. An intervention to overcome clinical inertia and improve diabetes mellitus control in a primary care setting: Improving Primary Care of African Americans with Diabetes (IPCAAD) 8. Archives of Internal Medicine 2006; 166(5): 507-513.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關論文
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔