Dataset Information

How Much Time Do Families Spend on the Health Care of Children with Diabetes?

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Family time caring for children with diabetes is an overlooked component of the overall burden of the condition. We document and analyze risk factors for time family members spend providing health care at home and arranging/coordinating health care for children with diabetes.

Methods

Data for 755 diabetic children and 16,161 non-diabetic children whose chronic conditions required only prescription (Rx) medication were from the 2009-2010 United States National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs (NS-CSHCN). We used generalized ordered logistic regressions to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of time burden by diabetes, insulin use, and stability of the child's health care needs, controlling for health and socioeconomic status.

Results

Nearly one-quarter of diabetic children had family members who spent 11+ h/week providing health care at home, and 8% spent 11+ h/week arranging/coordinating care, compared with 3.3% and 1.9%, respectively, of non-diabetic Rx-only children. Time providing care at home for insulin-using children was concentrated in the higher time categories: AORs for insulin-using diabetic compared to non-diabetic Rx-only children were 4.4 for 1+ h/week compared with <1 h/week, 9.7 for 6+ vs. <6 h, and 12.4 for 11+ vs. <11 h (all P < 0.05); the pattern was less pronounced for non-insulin-using children. AORs for arranging/coordinating care did not vary by time contrast: AOR = 4.2 for insulin-using, 3.0 for non-insulin-using children.

Conclusion

Health care providers, school personnel, and policymakers need to work with family members to improve care coordination and identify other ways to reduce family time burdens caring for children with diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Miller JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5014787 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe know little about how much time low-income patients and physicians spend discussing pain during primary care visits.ObjectiveTo measure the frequency and duration of pain-related discussions at a primary care clinic serving mostly low-income black patients; to investigate variables associated with these discussions.DesignWe measured the frequency and duration of pain-related discussions using video-recorded primary care visits; we used multiple regression to evaluate associations between discussions and patient self-report variables.ParticipantsA total of 133 patients presenting to a primary care clinic for any reason; 17 family medicine residents.Main measuresIndependent variables were pain severity, health status, physical function, chief complaint, and whether the patient and physician had met previously. Dependent variables were presence of pain-related discussions and percent of total visit time spent discussing pain.Key resultsSixty-nine percent of visits included pain-related discussions with a mean duration of 5.9 min (34% of total visit time). Increasing pain severity [OR 1.69, 95% CI (1.18, 2.41)] and pain-related chief complaints [OR 4.10, 95% CI (1.39, 12.12)] were positively associated with the probability of discussing pain. When patients discussed pain, they spent 4.5% more [95% CI (0.60, 8.37)] total visit time discussing pain for every one-point increase in pain severity. Better physical function was negatively associated with the probability of discussing pain [OR 0.65, 95% CI (0.48, 0.86)], but positively associated with the percent of total visit time spent discussing pain [3% increase; 95% CI (0.32, 5.75)] for every one-point increase in physical function). Patients and physicians who had met previously spent 11% less [95% CI (-21.65, -0.55)] total visit time discussing pain. Pain severity was positively associated with time spent discussing pain only when patients and physicians had not met previously.ConclusionsPain-related discussions comprise a substantial proportion of time during primary care visits. Future research should evaluate the relationship between time spent discussing pain and the quality of primary care pain management.

Project description:BackgroundMedication-related problems are an important cause of emergency department (ED) visits, and medication errors are reported in up to 60% of ED patients. Procedures such as medication reconciliation and medication review can identify and prevent medication-related problems and medication errors. However, this work is often time-consuming. In EDs without pharmacists, medication reconciliation is the physician's responsibility, in addition to the primary assignments of examining and diagnosing the patient. The aim of this study was to identify how much time ED physicians spend on medication-related tasks when no pharmacists are present in the EDs.MethodsAn observational time-and-motion study of physicians in three EDs in Northern Norway was conducted using Work Observation Method by Activity Timing (WOMBAT) to collect and time-stamp data. Observations were conducted in predefined two-hour observation sessions with a 1:1 relationship between observer and participant, during Monday to Friday between 8 am and 8 pm, from November 2020 to October 2021.ResultsIn total, 386 h of observations were collected during 225 observation sessions. A total of 8.7% of the physicians' work time was spent on medication-related tasks, of which most time was spent on oral communication about medications with other physicians (3.0%) and medication-related documentation (3.2%). Physicians spent 2.2 min per hour on medication reconciliation tasks, which includes retrieving medication-related information directly from the patient, reading/retrieving written medication-related information, and medication-related documentation. Physicians spent 85.6% of the observed time on non-medication-related clinical or administrative tasks, and the remaining time was spent standby or moving between tasks.ConclusionIn three Norwegian EDs, physicians spent 8.7% of their work time on medication-related tasks, and 85.6% on other clinical or administrative tasks. Physicians spent 2.2 min per hour on tasks related to medication reconciliation. We worry that patient safety related tasks in the EDs receive little attention. Allocating dedicated resources like pharmacists to contribute with medication-related tasks could benefit both physicians and patients.

Project description:Children with diabetes mellitus in low-income families have poor outcomes, but little is known as to how this relates to healthcare system structure. Our objective was to gain insight into how best to structure health systems to serve these children by describing their health care use in 2 health system models: a Canadian model, with an organized diabetes care network that includes generalists, and an American model, with targeted support services for children from low-income families.We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study involving children aged 1-17 years with type 1 diabetes mellitus. We used administrative data from between 2009 and 2012 from the California Children's Services program and Ontario. We used Ontario Drug Benefit Program enrolment to identify children from low-income families. Proportions of children receiving 2 or more routine diabetes visits per year were compared using ?2 tests, and diabetes-complication hospital admission rates were compared using direct standardization.More California children from low-income families (n = 4922) received routine care for diabetes from pediatric endocrinologists (63.9% v. 26.9%, p < 0.001) and used insulin pumps (22.8% v. 16.4%, p < 0.001) than Ontario children (n = 2050).California children from low-income families were less likely than Ontario children to receive 2 visits for routine diabetes care per year (64.7% v. 75.7%, p < 0.001), and had slightly higher per-patient year hospital admission rates for diabetes complications (absolute differences 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.02, for boys; 0.03, 95% CI 0.03-0.03, for girls).Ontario children from low-income families received more routine diabetes care than did California children from low-income families. Both groups of children had clinically comparable rates of hospital admission for diabetes complications. Diabetes care networks that integrate generalists may play a role in improving access and outcomes for the growing population of children with diabetes.

Project description:AIM:This study examined children's health care service use, mothers' workforce participation, and mothers' community engagement based on children's risk of developmental delay. METHOD:We used data from the All Our Families study, a prospective pregnancy cohort. Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) scores at year 2 indicated risk of developmental delay. To investigate the impact of risk of developmental delay when children were not diagnosed, a sensitivity analysis excluded reports of neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) diagnosis at year 3. Outcomes were maternal reports of children's health and allied health visits (and estimated costs), and maternal workforce participation and community engagement from year 2 to 3. RESULTS:Among 1314 mother-child dyads, 209 (16%) children were classified as being at risk of developmental delay by the ASQ, and 42 (3%) had a reported diagnosis of NDD. Risk of developmental delay was related to increased use of allied health care services (incidence risk ratio 5.04 [year 3]; 95% confidence interval 2.49-10.2) and health visits (incidence risk ratio 1.33 [year 3]; 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.54). The average expected allied health costs were greater for children at risk versus not at risk of developmental delay. However, when excluding children with reported diagnoses of an NDD from this analysis, increased service use and costs in the remaining at-risk population were not observed. Community engagement and workplace participation among families did not differ on the basis of risk of developmental delay. INTERPRETATION:These results suggest increased health care service use by families of children at risk of developmental delay is driven by those receiving a diagnosis of an NDD in the subsequent year. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS:Early developmental delay risk was related to health care service use and costs. Diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorder drove increased health care service use and costs. Early developmental delay risk did not relate to parental workforce participation. Early developmental delay risk did not relate to community engagement participation.

Project description:ImportanceThe Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to improve access and affordability of health insurance. Although most ACA policies targeted childless adults, the extent to which these policies also impacted families with children remains unclear.ObjectiveTo examine changes in health care-related financial burden for US families with children before and after the ACA was implemented based on income eligibility for ACA policies.Design, setting, and participantsData used for this cohort study were obtained from the 2000-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a nationally representative, population-based survey. Multivariable regression with a difference-in-differences estimator was used to examine changes in family financial burden before and after ACA implementation according to income-based ACA eligibility groups (≤138% [lowest-income], 139%-250% [low-income], 251%-400% [middle-income], and >400% [high-income] federal poverty level). The cohort included 92 165 families with 1 or more children (age ≤18 years) and 1 or more adult parents/guardians.ExposuresIncome-based eligibility groups during post-ACA years (calendar years 2014-2017) vs pre-ACA years (calendar years 2000-2013).Main outcomes and measuresFamily annual out-of-pocket (OOP) health care and premium cost burden relative to income. High OOP burden was determined based on a previously validated algorithm with relative cost thresholds that vary across incomes, and extreme OOP burden was defined as costs exceeding 10% of income. Premiums exceeding 9.5% of income were classified as burdensome and premiums relative to median household income defined an unaffordability index.ResultsCompared with high-income families who experienced a lesser change post-ACA implementation (high OOP burden, 1.1% pre-ACA vs 0.9% post-ACA), the lowest-income families saw the greatest reduction in high OOP burden (35.6% pre-ACA vs 23.7% post-ACA; difference-in-differences: -11.4%; 95% CI, -13.2% to -9.5%) followed by low-income families (24.6% pre-ACA vs 17.3% post-ACA, difference-in-differences: -6.8%; 95% CI, -8.7% to -4.9%) and middle-income families (6.1% pre-ACA vs 4.6% post-ACA, difference-in-differences: -1.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to -0.01%). Although premiums rose for all groups, premium unaffordability was the least exacerbated for the lowest-, low-, and middle-income families compared with higher-income families.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that low- and middle-income families with children who were eligible for ACA Medicaid expansions and Marketplace subsidies experienced greater reductions in health care-related financial burden after the ACA was implemented compared with families with higher incomes. However, despite ACA policies, many low- and middle-income families with children appear to continue to face considerable financial burden from premiums and OOP costs.

Project description:ImportanceAn increasing diversity of children's health coverage options under the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, together with uncertainty regarding reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beyond 2017, merits renewed attention on the quality of these options for children.ObjectiveTo compare health care access, quality, and cost outcomes by insurance type (Medicaid, CHIP, private, and uninsured) for children in households with low to moderate incomes.Design, setting, and participantsA repeated cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the 2003, 2007, and 2011-2012 US National Surveys of Children's Health, comprising 80,655 children 17 years or younger, weighted to 67 million children nationally, with household incomes between 100% and 300% of the federal poverty level. Multivariable logistic regression models compared caregiver-reported outcomes across insurance types. Analysis was conducted between July 14, 2014, and May 6, 2015.ExposuresInsurance type was ascertained using a caregiver-reported measure of insurance status and each household's poverty status (percentage of the federal poverty level).Main outcomes and measuresCaregiver-reported outcomes related to access to primary and specialty care, unmet needs, out-of-pocket costs, care coordination, and satisfaction with care.ResultsAmong the 80,655 children, 51,123 (57.3%) had private insurance, 11,853 (13.6%) had Medicaid, 9554 (18.4%) had CHIP, and 8125 (10.8%) were uninsured. In a multivariable logistic regression model (with results reported as adjusted probabilities [95% CIs]), children insured by Medicaid and CHIP were significantly more likely to receive a preventive medical (Medicaid, 88% [86%-89%]; P < .01; CHIP, 88% [87%-89%]; P < .01) and dental (Medicaid, 80% [78%-81%]; P < .01; CHIP, 77% [76%-79%]; P < .01) visits than were privately insured children (medical, 83% [82%-84%]; dental, 73% [72%-74%]). Children with all insurance types experienced challenges in access to specialty care, with caregivers of children insured by CHIP reporting the highest rates of difficulty accessing specialty care (28% [24%-32%]), problems obtaining a referral (23% [18%-29%]), and frustration obtaining health care services (26% [23%-28%]). These challenges were also magnified for privately insured children with special health care needs, whose caregivers reported significantly greater problems accessing specialty care (29% [26%-33%]) and frustration obtaining health care services (36% [32%-41%]) than did caregivers of children insured by Medicaid, and a lower likelihood of insurance always meeting the child's needs (63% [60%-67%]) than children insured by Medicaid or CHIP. Caregivers of privately insured children were also significantly more likely to experience out-of-pocket costs (77% [75%-78%]) than were caregivers of children insured by Medicaid (26% [23%-28%]; P < .01) or CHIP (38% [35%-40%]; P < .01).Conclusions and relevanceThis examination of caregiver experiences across insurance types revealed important differences that can help guide future policymaking regarding coverage for families with low to moderate incomes.