Figure 1
Multiple step approach to identify and rank unmet patient needs.
Table 1
Exploratory Survey – Effective components of chronic care programs.
| Item | % |
|---|---|
| Diagnosis and Treatment | 79.2% |
| Education of Patients/HCP | 75.0% |
| Multi-/Interdisciplinarity | 62.5% |
| Monitoring and Self-Control | 58.3% |
| (Lab) Parameter Control | 45.8% |
| Guideline Adherence | 25.0% |
| Lifestyle Change | 12.5% |
| Involving Public Health Institutions | 12.5% |
| Diabetes Registry | 8.3% |
| Pay-for-performance; Accreditation; Easy Access, Reasonable Price; DMP | 4.2% (each) |
Table 2
Exploratory Survey — Problematic components of chronic care programs.
| Item | % |
|---|---|
| Inadequate Health Care | 76.2% |
| Insufficient Payment/Funding | 57.1% |
| Incompetence of governmental structures/HCP | 52.4% |
| Unclear or Lack of Data | 47.6% |
| Insufficient Collaboration/Networking | 38.1% |
| Insufficient Adherence/Compliance of Patients | 28.6% |
| Increased Bureaucracy | 19.0% |
| Patient-related barriers | 9.5% |
Figure 2
Exploratory Survey – Missing components of chronic care programs (n = 93).
Figure 3
Exploratory Survey – Unmet needs and priorities (n = 93).
Figure 4
Expert workshop – Ranked exercise results showing priorities of need dimensions.
The 13 identified key dimensions reflect patients’ needs in chronic care.
Experts (n = 22) ranked the items from 1 (highest priority, green) to 13 (lowest priority, red). Numbers indicate means of the dimensions according the relevant perspective.
Table 3
Online Survey — Frequency table of participating countries (n = 650).
| Country | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 212 | 32.6 |
| Poland | 162 | 24.9 |
| Greece | 79 | 12.2 |
| Germany | 38 | 5.8 |
| Spain | 36 | 5.5 |
| Serbia | 15 | 2.3 |
| Great Britain | 10 | 1.5 |
| LAT | 9 | 1.4 |
| Austria | 8 | 1.2 |
| Belgium | 6 | 0.9 |
| Italy | 6 | 0.9 |
| Others (<6) | 69 | 10.6 |
Figure 5
Online Survey – Ranking of means for pre-defined needs dimensions comparing patients’ and HCP’s views.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Prioritisation of needs using “1” as the highest (green) and “13” as the lowest (red) priority resulting in calculated means.
Table 4
Online Survey – Country-specific ranking of means: HCPs Poland vs. other countries.
| Needs Dimensions | Poland (n = 139) | Other countries (n = 202) | MWU | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (mdn) | SD | Mean (mdn) | SD | U/Sig. | |
| Continuity of Care | 5.50(5) | 2.824 | 6.27(6) | 3.164 | 12180.5* |
| Health Care team/integrated health care/Coordination of care | 6.77(6) | 3.986 | 5.62(5) | 3.433 | 11709.5** |
| Budget and Financial Support | 4.66(4) | 3.329 | 5.85(5) | 3.935 | 11707.5** |
| Accessibility/Point of contact 24/7 services | 10.53(12) | 3.326 | 9.31(10) | 3.297 | 10282.0*** |
[i] *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Table 5
Online Survey – Country-specific ranking of means: patients Portugal vs. other countries.
| Needs Dimensions | Portugal (n = 203) | Other countries (n = 74) | MWU | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (mdn) | SD | Mean (mdn) | SD | U/Sig. | |
| Health promotion and all kinds of prevention | 3.82(3) | 3.244 | 5.55(6) | 3.634 | 5306.0*** |
| Accessibility/Point of contact 24/7 services | 9.91(11) | 2.732 | 8.47(9) | 3.421 | 5667.5** |
[i] *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.