dc.creatorGagliardino, Juan Jose
dc.creatorKleinebreil, Line
dc.creatorColagiuri, Stephen
dc.creatorFlack, Jeff
dc.creatorCaporale, Joaquín E.
dc.creatorSiri, Fernando
dc.creatorClark Jr., Charles
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-22T15:10:40Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-15T02:03:10Z
dc.date.available2020-01-22T15:10:40Z
dc.date.available2022-10-15T02:03:10Z
dc.date.created2020-01-22T15:10:40Z
dc.date.issued2010-04
dc.identifierGagliardino, Juan Jose; Kleinebreil, Line; Colagiuri, Stephen; Flack, Jeff; Caporale, Joaquín E.; et al.; Comparison of clinical-metabolic monitoring and outcomes and coronary risk status in people with type 2 diabetes from Australia, France and Latin America; Elsevier Ireland; Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice; 88; 1; 4-2010; 7-13
dc.identifier0168-8227
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/95544
dc.identifierCONICET Digital
dc.identifierCONICET
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/4333136
dc.description.abstractAim: To compare clinical-metabolic monitoring and coronary risk status in people with type 2 diabetes from Australia, France and Latin America. Methods: Retrospective analysis of data collected at primary care (4540 participants from each population) matched for age, gender and disease duration. Measurements included participants' characteristics, performance frequency of clinical-metabolic process indicators, and percentage of clinical-metabolic outcomes at recommended target values. Results: The weighted mean of the percentage of process performance was within 68 to 81%; that of outcomes at target dropped to 29 to 45%. Although statistically significant, differences among groups were far from those in healthcare budgets, and probably only of marginal clinical impact. The percentage of patients with low, slight or high coronary risk was similar in the three groups, with most people at high or very high risk. Conclusions: Despite the high difference in health per capita investment and system characteristics among countries, the study populations had striking similarities regarding the low percentage of participants who achieved cardiovascular risk factor and diabetes treatment goals. Therefore, differences in health budget and system characteristics would not be the main drivers in care quality. Diabetes education at every level and quality care registries would contribute to improve this situation and assess such improvement.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherElsevier Ireland
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016882270900549X
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2009.12.024
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subjectACCESS AND EVALUATION
dc.subjectDIABETES MELLITUS
dc.subjectHEALTH CARE QUALITY
dc.subjectMONITORING
dc.subjectRISK ASSESSMENT
dc.subjectRISK FACTORS
dc.titleComparison of clinical-metabolic monitoring and outcomes and coronary risk status in people with type 2 diabetes from Australia, France and Latin America
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución