Temporal trend in quality indicators of diabetes care performance among persons with type 2 diabetes in primary care practice: a serial cross-sectional analytical study, 2013/14 to 2021/22
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although the national-based policy implemented an initiative program to offer diabetes care management in Thailand, there are limited time trends of evidence to gauge whether the quality of diabetes care in primary care practice is improving. As such, we aimed to identify temporal trends in the quality of diabetes care performance among type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in primary care practice. Methods Using assembled patient-level data from a suburban community in northern Thailand, this serial retrospective cross-sectional analytical study obtained adult T2DM patients from nine consecutive fiscal years 2013/14 ( n = 976) to 2021/22 ( n = 1,242). Based on international and national guidelines recommended, nine quality indicators were examined, namely, smoking cessation, hemoglobin A1c monitoring, foot and eye examinations, albuminuria testing, statin prescription, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB) prescription for chronic kidney disease (CKD)/albuminuria, and blood pressure and glycemic control. Rates and time trends achieved in each quality indicator performance were estimated. Differences in the rates of patients who met each quality indicator across reimbursement schemes were explored. Results From 2013/14 to 2021/22, all quality indicators have increased over time ( p for trend <0.05) except for smoking cessation, which remained steady. In 2021/22, only three out of nine quality indicators (i.e., smoking cessation, annual HbA1c monitoring, and annual foot examination) were successfully met at 70% or greater. Differences in quality indicators of diabetes performance were observed, particularly those under the Civil Servant Medical Benefit Scheme compared with other health insurance counterparts. For overall time trends analysis (compared with 2013/14), significant relative changes in the fiscal year 2021/22 were found in the annual foot examination (adjusted 12.1% increase; p = 0.048), annual albuminuria testing (adjusted 12.1% increase; p = 0.048), and ACEI/ARB prescription for persons with CKD or albuminuria (adjusted 22.2% increase; p = 0.025). Conclusion Among adult T2DM patients from 2013/14 to 2021/22, overall quality indicators for diabetes performance have substantially improved over time. However, health inequity regarding diabetes care performance was found across different reimbursement schemes. Sustainable policy implementation and innovative strategies to narrow health inequity are warranted to optimize diabetes care in primary care practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".