1
|
Corrao G, Rea F, Carle F, Di Martino M, De Palma R, Francesconi P, Lepore V, Merlino L, Scondotto S, Garau D, Spazzafumo L, Montagano G, Clagnan E, Martini N, Bucci A, Carle F, Dajko M, Arcà S, Bellentani D, Bruno V, Carbone S, Ceccolini C, De Feo A, Lispi L, Mariniello R, Masullo M, Medici F, Pisanti P, Visca M, Zanini R, Di Fiandra T, Magliocchetti N, Romano G, Cantarutti A, Corrao G, Pugni P, Rea F, Davoli M, Fusco D, Di Martino M, Lallo A, Marinacci C, Maggioni A, Vittori P, Belotti L, De Palma R, Di Felice E, Chiandetti R, Clagnan E, Del Zotto S, Di Lenarda A, Mariotto A, Zanier L, Agnello M, Lora A, Merlino L, Scirè CA, Sechi G, Spazzafumo L, Massaro G, Simiele M, Cosentino M, Marvulli MG, Attolini E, Bisceglia L, Lepore V, Petrarolo V, Dondi L, Martini N, Pedrini A, Piccinni C, Fantaci G, Addario SP, Scondotto S, Bellomo F, Braga M, Di Fabrizio V, Forni S, Francesconi P, Profili F, Avossa F, Corradin M, Bucci A, Carle F, Dajko M, Arcà S, Bellentani D, Bruno V, Carbone S, Ceccolini C, De Feo A, Lispi L, Mariniello R, Masullo M, Medici F, Pisanti P, Visca M, Zanini R, Di Fiandra T, Magliocchetti N, Romano G, Cantarutti A, Corrao G, Pugni P, Rea F, Davoli M, Fusco D, Di Martino M, Lallo A, Marinacci C, Maggioni A, Vittori P, Belotti L, De Palma R, Di Felice E, Chiandetti R, Clagnan E, Del Zotto S, Di Lenarda A, Mariotto A, Zanier L, Agnello M, Lora A, Merlino L, Scirè CA, Sechi G, Spazzafumo L, Massaro G, Simiele M, Cosentino M, Marvulli MG, Attolini E, Bisceglia L, Lepore V, Petrarolo V, Dondi L, Martini N, Pedrini A, Piccinni C, Fantaci G, Addario SP, Scondotto S, Bellomo F, Braga M, Di Fabrizio V, Forni S, Francesconi P, Profili F, Avossa F, Corradin M. Measuring multimorbidity inequality across Italy through the multisource comorbidity score: a nationwide study. Eur J Public Health 2020; 30:916-921. [DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckaa063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Multimorbidity is a growing concern for healthcare systems, with many countries experiencing demographic transition to older population profiles. A simple multisource comorbidity score (MCS) has been recently developed and validated. A very large real-world investigation was conducted with the aim of measuring inequalities in the MCS distribution across Italy.
Methods
Beneficiaries of the Italian National Health Service aged 50–85 years who in 2018 were resident in one of the 10 participant regions formed the study population (15.7 million of the 24.9 million overall resident in Italy). MCS was assigned to each beneficiary by categorizing the individual sum of the comorbid values (i.e. the weights corresponding to the comorbid conditions of which the individual suffered) into one of the six categories denoting a progressive worsening comorbidity status. MCS distributions in women and men across geographic partitions were compared.
Results
Compared with beneficiaries from northern Italy, those from centre and south showed worse comorbidity profile for both women and men. MCS median age (i.e. the age above which half of the beneficiaries suffered at least one comorbidity) ranged from 60 (centre and south) to 68 years (north) in women and from 63 (centre and south) to 68 years (north) in men. The percentage of comorbid population was lower than 50% for northern population, whereas it was around 60% for central and southern ones.
Conclusion
MCS allowed of capturing geographic variability of multimorbidity prevalence, thus showing up its value for addressing health policy in order to guide national health planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni Corrao
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
- Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Federico Rea
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
- Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Flavia Carle
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
- Center of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy
| | - Mirko Di Martino
- Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Regional Health Service, Rome, Italy
| | - Rossana De Palma
- Authority for Healthcare and Welfare, Emilia Romagna Regional Health Service, Bologna, Italy
| | - Paolo Francesconi
- Regional Health Agency of Tuscany (Agenzia regionale di sanità), Florence, Italy
| | - Vito Lepore
- Regional Health Agency of Puglia (Agenzia regionale socio-sanitaria), Bari, Italy
| | - Luca Merlino
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
- Epidemiologic Observatory, Lombardy Regional Health Service, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Donatella Garau
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
- Regional Councillorship of Health ‘Regione Autonoma della Sardegna’, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Liana Spazzafumo
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
- Biostatistics Centre, INRCA-IRCCS National Institute, Ancona, Italy
| | | | - Elena Clagnan
- Regional Health Agency of Friuli-Venezia-Giulia (Azienda Regionale di Coordinamento per la Salute), Udine, Italy
| | - Nello Martini
- Research and Health Foundation (Fondazione ReS-Ricerca e Salute), Bologna, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Palese A, Gentilini S, Lo Grasso G, Branca MT, Chiandetti R, Mansutti I. Research priorities in Italian diabetes nursing care: findings from a Delphi study. Ann Ig 2015; 27:66-73. [PMID: 25748507 DOI: 10.7416/ai.2015.2024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
AIM Defining a set of research priorities for diabetes nursing care in the Italian context. DESIGN A two-step study design based on a modified Delphi technique was undertaken in 2013. METHODS In the first stage of research, five systematic reviews of literature were performed. Among them 865 recommendations in diabetes nursing care emerged, and 217 (25.1%) were categorized at level IV or lower, thus based on a lack of knowledge and therefore a potential research area. Homogeneous recommendations among the 217 emerged and were categorized by two researchers independently: 96 final recommendations were identified and transformed into items embodied into a questionnaire. A Likert scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) was used to collect the consensus regarding priority. For that purpose a sample of 200 nurses was randomly considered. Potential participants were invited to cooperate via email through a letter reporting aims and methods. In the first round 85 nurses participated; in the third and final round, only 13 nurses took part. RESULTS Participants have identified 14 research priorities categorized into three main areas: 1) education strategies' effectiveness (n=7); 2) models of care delivery and advanced nursing education effectiveness (n=4); and 3) in specific clinical issues (n=3). CONCLUSIONS More research on patient education and on models of care delivery and advanced nursing education should be included in any future Italian agenda.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Palese
- Corso di laurea in Infermieristica, University of Udine, Italy
| | - S Gentilini
- Corso di laurea in Infermieristica, University of Udine, Italy
| | - G Lo Grasso
- Vice-President, the Italian Association of Diabetes Nursing Care, Operatori Sanitari di Diabetologia Italiani (OSDI), Catania, Italy
| | - M T Branca
- Past President, the Italian Association of Diabetes Nursing Care, Operatori Sanitari di Diabetologia Italiani (OSDI), Lecce, Italy
| | - R Chiandetti
- President, the Italian Association of Diabetes Nursing Care, Operatori Sanitari di Diabetologia Italiani (OSDI), Udine, Italy
| | - I Mansutti
- Corso di laurea in Infermieristica, University of Udine, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Romanin M, Chiandetti R, Comisso I, Palese A. [The management of insulin administration: systematic review and recommendations]. Assist Inferm Ric 2011; 30:144-54. [PMID: 22076627 DOI: 10.1702/970.10588] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
AIMS In spite of the large prevalence and increasing incidence of diabetes, recommendations on how to correctly administer the insulin are lacking. METHODS; A systematic literature review was performed starting from a list of clinical questions collected from patients, clinical experts (doctors and nurses) and others involved in diabetic patients care. The main databases were searched with the following key-words: Insulin/administration and dosage[Mesh]; "Injections, Subcutaneous/instrumentation"[Mesh]; "Injections, Subcutaneous/methods"[Mesh]; insulin administration modalities [All Fields]; insulin administration technique [All Fields]; insulin adsorption[All Fields]; Patient education as a topic/methods [Mesh]. The articles were independently analyzed by three authors and discrepancies discussed. A list of recommendations was produced weighting the evidences according to the Italian National Program for Guidelines method. RESULTS Over 94 eligible articles, 71 were included. Recommendations for the following areas were produced: self management and education; tools and methods for insulin administration; injection sites; injection techniques; prevention and management of complications; insulin storage; management of IV infusions. Most recommendations are of level II (a single RCT with adequate design) or III (cohort non randomized studies with concurrent or historical controls). CONCLUSIONS Although several recommendations were identified (e.g., the importance of rotation of injection sites, the criteria for choosing the right needle and injection site according to the type of insulin and speed of absorbtion), several questions are still unanswered and would warrant further and more specific studies.
Collapse
|