請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/65797
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 楊銘欽 | |
dc.contributor.author | Hsuan-Wei Li | en |
dc.contributor.author | 李宣緯 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T00:12:16Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2014-09-17 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2012-09-17 | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2012-07-11 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1.行政院衛生署國民健康局. 2007年台灣地區高血壓、高血糖、高血脂之追蹤調查研究. 2009 [cited 2011 3.15.]; Available from: http://www.bhp.doh.gov.tw/bhpnet/portal/Them_Show.aspx?Subject=200712250011&Class=2&No=201102140001.
2.中央健康保險局 健保藥費,慢性病及重大傷病占最大宗. 中央健康保險局電子報, 2009. 121. 3.陳宗泰, 鍾國彪, and 賴美淑, 另一種流行趨勢-論成效計酬的趨勢與展望. 臺灣公共衛生雜誌, 2007. 26(5): p. 353-370. 4.Shen, Y., Selection incentives in a performance-based contracting system. Health Services Research, 2003. 38(2): p. 535-552. 5.Casalino, L.P., et al., General internists' views on pay-for-performance and public reporting of quality scores: a national survey. Health Affairs, 2007. 26(2): p. 492-499. 6.Tanenbaum, S.J., Pay for performance in Medicare: evidentiary irony and the politics of value. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 2009. 34(5): p. 717-746. 7.Karve, A.M., et al., Potential unintended financial consequences of pay-for-performance on the quality of care for minority patients. American Heart Journal, 2008. 155(3): p. 571-576. 8.Werner, R.M., L.E. Goldman, and R.A. Dudley, Comparison of change in quality of care between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals. JAMA, 2008. 299(18): p. 2180-2187. 9.Casalino, L.P., et al., Will pay-for-performance and quality reporting affect health care disparities? Health Affairs, 2007. 26(3): p. w405-w414. 10.Roland, M., Linking physicians' pay to the quality of care — a major experiment in the United kingdom. New England Journal of Medicine, 2004. 351(14): p. 1448-1454. 11.McDonald, R. and M. Roland, Pay for performance in primary care in England and California: comparison of unintended consequences. Annals of Family Medicine, 2009. 7(2): p. 121-127. 12.Bloch, M.J. and J.N. Basile, Hypertension patients with multiple comorbidities are more likely to have their BP controlled within the VA healthcare system: unfounded concerns about pay-for-performance. Journal of Clinical Hypertension, 2009. 11(10): p. 577-579. 13.Millett, C., et al., Ethnic disparities in diabetes management and pay-for-performance in the UK: the Wandsworth Prospective Diabetes Study. Plos Medicine, 2007. 4(6): p. e191-e191. 14.Serumaga, B., et al., Effect of pay for performance on the management and outcomes of hypertension in the United Kingdom: interrupted time series study. British Medical Journal, 2011. 342: p. d108-d108. 15.Petersen, L.A., et al., Will hypertension performance measures used for pay-for-performance programs penalize those who care for medically complex patients? Circulation, 2009. 119(23): p. 2978-2985. 16.Forrest, C.B., V.V. Villagra, and J.E. Pope, Managing the metric vs managing the patient: the physician's view of pay for performance. American Journal of Managed Care, 2006. 12(2): p. 83-85. 17.Min, L.C., et al., Multimorbidity is associated with better quality of care among vulnerable elders. Medical Care, 2007. 45(6): p. 480-488. 18.Redelmeier, D.A., S.H. Tan, and G.L. Booth, The treatment of unrelated disorders in patients with chronic medical diseases. New England Journal of Medicine, 1998. 338(21): p. 1516-1520. 19.Fontana, S.A., et al., The delivery of preventive services in primary care practices according to chronic disease status. American Journal of Public Health, 1997. 87(7): p. 1190-1196. 20.Higashi, T., et al., Relationship between number of medical conditions and quality of care. New England Journal of Medicine, 2007. 356(24): p. 2496-2504. 21.Harman, J.S., et al., The influence of comorbid chronic medical conditions on the adequacy of depression care for older Americans. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2005. 53(12): p. 2178-2183. 22.陳都文 and 王俊毅, 糖尿病共同照護網對偏遠地區中老年患者健康狀況之成效. 臺灣公共衛生雜誌, 2009. 28(4): p. 334-343. 23.Williams, B., et al., British Hypertension Society guidelines for hypertension management 2004 (BHS-IV): summary. BMJ, 2004. 328(7440): p. 634-640. 24.Schnell, O., W. Otter, and E. Standl, The Munich Myocardial Infarction Registry: translating the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular disease into clinical practice. Diabetes Care, 2009. 32 Suppl 2: p. S326-S330. 25.Doran, T. and C. Fullwood, Pay for performance: is it the best way to improve control of hypertension? Current Hypertension Reports, 2007. 9(5): p. 360-367. 26.Mabotuwana, T., et al., Use of interval based quality indicators in blood pressure management to enhance quality of pay for performance incentives: comparison to two indicators from the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Quality in Primary Care, 2010. 18(2): p. 93-101. 27.Bodenheimer, T., E.H. Wagner, and K. Grumbach, Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model, part 2. JAMA, 2002. 288(15): p. 1909-1914. 28.Halanych, J.H., et al., Burden of comorbid medical conditions and quality of diabetes care. Diabetes Care, 2007. 30(12): p. 2999-3004. 29.Chen, T.-T., et al., The unintended consequence of diabetes mellitus pay-for-performance (P4P) program in Taiwan: are patients with more comorbidities or more severe conditions likely to be excluded from the P4P program? Health Services Research, 2011. 46(1 Pt 1): p. 47-60. 30.Boyd, C.M., et al., Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA, 2005. 294(6): p. 716-724. 31.Vogeli, C., et al., Multiple chronic conditions: prevalence, health consequences, and implications for quality, care management, and costs. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2007. 22 Suppl 3: p. 391-395. 32.Millett, C., et al., Pay for perfomance and the quality of diabetes management in individuals with and without co-morbid medical conditions. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2009. 102(9): p. 369-377. 33.Chobanian, A.V., et al., The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA, 2003. 289(19): p. 2560-2572. 34.行政院衛生署國民健康局. 高血壓防治手冊:高血壓偵測、控制與治療流程指引. 2004 [cited 2011 4.18.]; Available from: http://www.bhp.doh.gov.tw/health91/1-4-4.htm. 35.Bakris, G.L., et al., Effects of blood pressure level on progression of diabetic nephropathy: results from the RENAAL study. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2003. 163(13): p. 1555-1565. 36.Mohamed, Q., M.C. Gillies, and T.Y. Wong, Management of diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review. JAMA, 2007. 298(8): p. 902-916. 37.Tung, T.-H., et al., A community-based follow-up study on diabetic retinopathy among type 2 diabetics in Kinmen. European Journal of Epidemiology, 2005. 20(4): p. 317-323. 38.中華民國糖尿病學會. 糖尿病臨床照護指引(初稿). 2010 [cited 2010 10.23.]; Available from: http://www.endo-dm.org.tw/dia/dia_bookidx.asp. 39.林宏達, 認識糖尿病2003, 台北: 台灣糖尿病協會. 40.周碧瑟, et al., 台灣地區糖尿病流行病學. 臺灣公共衛生雜誌, 2002. 21(2): p. 83-96. 41.Hu, F.B., et al., Elevated risk of cardiovascular disease prior to clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2002. 25(7): p. 1129-1134. 42.Morrish, N.J., et al., Mortality and causes of death in the WHO Multinational Study of Vascular Disease in Diabetes. Diabetologia, 2001. 44 Suppl 2: p. S14-S21. 43.塗宜育 and 許惠恒, 血糖異常與心血管疾病. 內科學誌, 2008. 19(4): p. 289-296. 44.Bloomgarden, Z.T., Cardiovascular disease in diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2010. 33(4): p. e49-e54. 45.康志森, et al., 冠心病事件危險預測之新知. 內科學誌, 2006. 17(4): p. 143-154. 46.Starfield, B., et al., Comorbidity: implications for the importance of primary care in 'case' management. Annals of Family Medicine, 2003. 1(1): p. 8-14. 47.Lagu, T., et al., The impact of concordant and discordant conditions on the quality of care for hyperlipidemia. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2008. 23(8): p. 1208-1213. 48.Turner, B.J., et al., Effect of unrelated comorbid conditions on hypertension management. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2008. 148(8): p. 578-586. 49.Charlson, M.E., et al., A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1987. 40(5): p. 373-383. 50.Deyo, R.A., D.C. Cherkin, and M.A. Ciol, Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1992. 45(6): p. 613-619. 51.Romano, P.S., L.L. Roos, and J.G. Jollis, Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1993. 46(10): p. 1075-1079. 52.Romano, P.S., L.L. Roost, and J.G. Jollis, Further evidence concerning the use of a clinical comorbidity index with ICD-9-CM administrative data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1993. 46(10): p. 1085-1090. 53.D'Hoore, W., C. Sicotte, and C. Tilquin, Risk adjustment in outcome assessment: the Charlson comorbidity index. Methods of Information in Medicine, 1993. 32(5): p. 382-387. 54.朱育增 and 吳肖琪, 回顧與探討次級資料適用之共病測量方法. 臺灣公共衛生雜誌, 2010. 29(1): p. 8-21. 55.Elixhauser, A., et al., Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Medical Care, 1998. 36(1): p. 8-27. 56.Von Korff, M., E.H. Wagner, and K. Saunders, A chronic disease score from automated pharmacy data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1992. 45(2): p. 197-203. 57.Clark, D.O., et al., A chronic disease score with empirically derived weights. Medical Care, 1995. 33(8): p. 783-795. 58.Lee, W.-C., Quantifying morbidities by Adjusted Clinical Group system for a Taiwan population: a nationwide analysis. BMC Health Services Research, 2008. 8: p. 153-153. 59.Chang, H.-Y. and J.P. Weiner, An in-depth assessment of a diagnosis-based risk adjustment model based on national health insurance claims: the application of the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group case-mix system in Taiwan. BMC Medicine, 2010. 8: p. 7-7. 60.Weiner, J.P., et al., Development and application of a population-oriented measure of ambulatory care case-mix. Medical Care, 1991. 29(5): p. 452-472. 61.Klabunde, C.N., et al., Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000. 53(12): p. 1258-1267. 62.Ash, A.S., et al., Using claims data to examine mortality trends following hospitalization for heart attack in Medicare. Health Services Research, 2003. 38(5): p. 1253-1262. 63.李偉強, et al., 應用ACG病例組合系統評量榮民疾病負荷與校正醫療利用. 醫務管理期刊, 2007. 8(1): p. 67-84. 64.Lee, W.-C. and T.-P. Huang, Explanatory ability of the ACG system regarding the utilization and expenditure of the national health insurance population in Taiwan--a 5-year analysis. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 2008. 71(4): p. 191-199. 65.Chu, Y.-T., Y.-Y. Ng, and S.-C. Wu, Comparison of different comorbidity measures for use with administrative data in predicting short- and long-term mortality. BMC Health Services Research, 2010. 10: p. 140-140. 66.Baldwin, L.-M., et al., In search of the perfect comorbidity measure for use with administrative claims data: does it exist? Medical Care, 2006. 44(8): p. 745-753. 67.Southern, D.A., H. Quan, and W.A. Ghali, Comparison of the Elixhauser and Charlson/Deyo methods of comorbidity measurement in administrative data. Medical Care, 2004. 42(4): p. 355-360. 68.朱育增, et al., 探討共病測量方法於健保次級資料之應用. 臺灣公共衛生雜誌, 2010. 29(3): p. 191-200. 69.Bae, S. and M.B. Rosenthal, Patients with multiple chronic conditions do not receive lower quality of preventive care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2008. 23(12): p. 1933-1939. 70.Burgers, J.S., et al., Quality and coordination of care for patients with multiple conditions: results from an international survey of patient experience. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 2010. 33(3): p. 343-364. 71.Shadmi, E., et al., Morbidity and older persons' perceptions of the quality of their primary care. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2006. 54(2): p. 330-334. 72.Chaudhry, S.I., D.R. Berlowitz, and J. Concato, Do age and comorbidity affect intensity of pharmacological therapy for poorly controlled diabetes mellitus? Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2005. 53(7): p. 1214-1216. 73.MacLean, C.H., et al., Quality of care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA, 2000. 284(8): p. 984-992. 74.El-Kebbi, I.M., et al., Comorbidity and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2001. 161(10): p. 1295-1300. 75.Meduru, P., et al., Chronic illness with complexity: implications for performance measurement of optimal glycemic control. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2007. 22 Suppl 3: p. 408-418. 76.Young, G.J., et al., Conceptual issues in the design and implementation of pay-for-quality programs. American Journal of Medical Quality, 2005. 20(3): p. 144-150. 77.Epstein, A.M., Paying for performance in the United States and abroad. New England Journal of Medicine, 2006. 355(4): p. 406-408. 78.Doran, T., et al., Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. New England Journal of Medicine, 2006. 355(4): p. 375-384. 79.Lindenauer, P.K., et al., Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement. New England Journal of Medicine, 2007. 356(5): p. 486-496. 80.Petersen, L.A., et al., Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care? Annals of Internal Medicine, 2006. 145(4): p. 265-272. 81.Glickman, S.W., et al., Pay for performance, quality of care, and outcomes in acute myocardial infarction. JAMA, 2007. 297(21): p. 2373-2380. 82.Guthrie, B., G. Auerback, and A.B. Bindman, Health plan competition for medicaid enrollees based on performance does not improve quality of care. Health Affairs, 2010. 29(8): p. 1507-1516. 83.Mannion, R. and H.T.O. Davies, Payment for performance in health care. BMJ, 2008. 336(7639): p. 306-308. 84.Millett, C., et al., Impact of pay for performance on ethnic disparities in intermediate outcomes for diabetes: a longitudinal study. Diabetes Care, 2009. 32(3): p. 404-409. 85.Millett, C., et al., Ethnic disparities in blood pressure management in patients with hypertension after the introduction of pay for performance. Annals of Family Medicine, 2008. 6(6): p. 490-496. 86.Crawley, D., et al., Impact of pay for performance on quality of chronic disease management by social class group in England. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2009. 102(3): p. 103-107. 87.Ashworth, M. and D. Armstrong, The relationship between general practice characteristics and quality of care: a national survey of quality indicators used in the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework, 2004-5. BMC Family Practice, 2006. 7: p. 68-68. 88.Saxena, S., et al., Practice size, caseload, deprivation and quality of care of patients with coronary heart disease, hypertension and stroke in primary care: national cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research, 2007. 7: p. 96-96. 89.Doran, T., et al., Effect of financial incentives on inequalities in the delivery of primary clinical care in England: analysis of clinical activity indicators for the quality and outcomes framework. Lancet, 2008. 372(9640): p. 728-736. 90.Fagan, P.J., et al., Chronic care improvement in primary care: evaluation of an integrated pay-for-performance and practice-based care coordination program among elderly patients with diabetes. Health Services Research, 2010. 45(6 Pt 1): p. 1763-1782. 91.Guthrie, B., A. Emslie-Smith, and A.D. Morris, Which people with Type 2 diabetes achieve good control of intermediate outcomes? Population database study in a UK region. Diabetic Medicine, 2009. 26(12): p. 1269-1276. 92.Sutton, M. and G. McLean, Determinants of primary medical care quality measured under the new UK contract: cross sectional study. BMJ, 2006. 332(7538): p. 389-390. 93.Lee, T.-T., et al., A pay-for-performance program for diabetes care in Taiwan: a preliminary assessment. American Journal of Managed Care, 2010. 16(1): p. 65-69. 94.林文德, et al., 以傾向分數配對法評估糖尿病論質計酬方案之成效. 臺灣公共衛生雜誌, 2010. 29(1): p. 54-63. 95.Tsai, W.-C., et al., Effects of pay-for-performance system on tuberculosis default cases control and treatment in Taiwan. Journal of Infection, 2010. 61(3): p. 235-243. 96.Li, Y.-H., et al., The effects of pay-for-performance on tuberculosis treatment in Taiwan. Health Policy and Planning, 2010. 25(4): p. 334-341. 97.謝鈺婷, et al., 評估健保制度中肺結核的論質計酬專案. 人文及社會科學集刊, 2010. 22(4): p. 485-519. 98.李婉萍, et al., 醫院結核病個案管理模式之探討. 臺灣公共衛生雜誌, 2008. 27(5): p. 373-384. 99.Weng, H.-C., Impacts of a government-sponsored outpatient-based disease management program for patients with asthma: a preliminary analysis of national data from Taiwan. Disease Management, 2005. 8(1): p. 48-58. 100.蘇有村, et al., 全民健康保險氣喘醫療給付改善方案改善多數兒童氣喘疾病嚴重度. 中華民國兒童胸腔醫學會雜誌, 2008. 5(4): p. 1-10. 101.劉慧俐, 黃明賢, and 王鴻昌, 全民健保各層級醫療院所氣喘疾病管理模式之質性探討-以高屏分局為例. 醫務管理期刊, 2006. 7(1): p. 81-106. 102.張玉蓉, 高血壓醫療給付改善方案對高血壓病患可避免住院的影響, in 衛生福利研究所2010, 國立陽明大學: 台北市. 103.Doran, T., et al., Exclusion of patients from pay-for-performance targets by English physicians. New England Journal of Medicine, 2008. 359(3): p. 274-284. 104.Shah, S.M., et al., Quality of chronic disease care for older people in care homes and the community in a primary care pay for performance system: retrospective study. BMJ, 2011. 342: p. d912-d912. 105.Dalton, A.R.H., et al., Exclusion of patients from quality measurement of diabetes care in the UK pay-for-performance programme. Diabetic Medicine, 2011. 28(5): p. 525-531. 106.Simpson, C.R., et al., Are different groups of patients with stroke more likely to be excluded from the new UK general medical services contract? A cross-sectional retrospective analysis of a large primary care population. BMC Family Practice, 2007. 8: p. 56-56. 107.Imbens, G., The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika, 2000. 87(3): p. 706-710. 108.關秉寅 and 李敦義, 補習數學有用嗎?一個“反事實”的分析. 臺灣社會學刊, 2008. 41: p. 97-148. 109.Rosenbaum, P.R. and D.B. Rubin, The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 1983. 70(1): p. 41-55. 110.D'Agostino, R.B., Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 1998. 17(19): p. 2265-2281. 111.Holland, P.W., Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1986. 81(396): p. 945-960. 112.Imai, K. and D.A.V. Dyk, Causal inference with general treatment regimes: generalizing the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2004. 99(467): p. 854-866. 113.Rubin, D.B., Randomization analysis of experimental data: the fisher randomization test comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1980. 75(371): p. 591-593. 114.Caliendo, M. and S. Kopeinig, Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 2008. 22(1): p. 31-72. 115.Weitzen, S., et al., Weaknesses of goodness-of-fit tests for evaluating propensity score models: the case of the omitted confounder. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2005. 14(4): p. 227-238. 116.Martens, E.P., et al., Comparing treatment effects after adjustment with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score methods. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2008. 17(1): p. 1-8. 117.Drake, C., Effects of misspecification of the propensity score on estimators of treatment effect. Biometrics, 1993. 49(4): p. 1231-1236. 118.Rosenbaum, P.R. and D.B. Rubin, Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician, 1985. 39(1): p. 33-38. 119.Smith, J.A. and P.E. Todd, Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics, 2005. 125: p. 305-353. 120.Guo, S. and M.W. Fraser, Propensity score matching and related models, in Propensity score analysis: statistical methods and applications, S. Guo and M.W. Fraser, Editors. 2010, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, California. p. 370. 121.Sianesi, B., An evaluation of the Swedish system of active labor market programs in the 1990s. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2004. 86(1): p. 133-155. 122.Dehejia, R.H. and S. Wahba, Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2002. 84(1): p. 151-161. 123.Dehejia, R.H. and S. Wahba, Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1999. 94(448): p. 1053-1062. 124.Winship, C. and S.L. Morgan, The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annual Review of Sociology, 1999. 25: p. 659-706. 125.Seeger, J.D., P.L. Williams, and A.M. Walker, An application of propensity score matching using claims data. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2005. 14(7): p. 465-476. 126.鄧安智, 臺灣期末腎臟病患腹膜透析與血液透析之存活比較, in 醫療機構管理研究所2010, 國立臺灣大學: 台北市. 127.Cochran, W.G. and S.P. Chambers, The planning of observational studies of human populations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 1965. 128(2): p. 234-266. 128.Cochran, W.G., The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics, 1968. 24(2): p. 295-313. 129.Rosenbaum, P.R. and D.B. Rubin, Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1984. 79(387): p. 516-524. 130.Austin, P.C., The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Medical Decision Making, 2009. 29(6): p. 661-677. 131.Aakvik, A., Bounding a matching estimator: the case of a Norwegian training program. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 2001. 63(1): p. 115-143. 132.Austin, P.C., The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine, 2007. 26(16): p. 3078-3094. 133.Shah, B.R., et al., Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005. 58(6): p. 550-559. 134.Cepeda, M.S., et al., Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2003. 158(3): p. 280-287. 135.Weitzen, S., et al., Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2004. 13(12): p. 841-853. 136.D'Agostino, R.B., Jr. and D.B. Rubin, Estimating and using propensity scores with partially missing data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2000. 95(451): p. 749-759. 137.Lau, E.H.Y., et al., Effectiveness of ribavirin and corticosteroids for severe acute respiratory syndrome. American Journal of Medicine, 2009. 122(12): p. 1150.e11-1150.e21. 138.Qu, Y. and I. Lipkovich, Propensity score estimation with missing values using a multiple imputation missingness pattern (MIMP) approach. Statistics in Medicine, 2009. 28(9): p. 1402-1414. 139.Werner, R.M., et al., Measuring quality of care in patients with multiple clinical conditions: summary of a conference conducted by the Society of General Internal Medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2007. 22(8): p. 1206-1211. 140.Pham, H.H., et al., Care patterns in Medicare and their implications for pay for performance. New England Journal of Medicine, 2007. 356(11): p. 1130-1139. 141.Perreault, S., et al., Persistence with treatment in newly treated middle-aged patients with essential hypertension. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 2005. 39(9): p. 1401-1408. 142.Mazzaglia, G., et al., Adherence to antihypertensive medications and cardiovascular morbidity among newly diagnosed hypertensive patients. Circulation, 2009. 120(16): p. 1598-1605. 143.Gogovor, A., et al., Comparison of persistence rates with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors used in secondary and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Value In Health, 2007. 10(5): p. 431-441. 144.Mann, D.M., et al., Predictors of Nonadherence to Statins: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 2010. 44(9): p. 1410-1421. 145.Cramer, J.A., et al., The significance of compliance and persistence in the treatment of diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia: a review. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 2008. 62(1): p. 76-87. 146.Chang, H.-Y., et al., A population study of the self-care behaviors and their associated factors of diabetes in Taiwan: results from the 2001 National Health Interview Survey in Taiwan. Preventive Medicine, 2005. 40(3): p. 344-348. 147.Emanuel, E.J. and L.L. Emanuel, The economics of dying - the illusion of cost savings at the end of life. New England Journal of Medicine, 1994. 330(8): p. 540-544. 148.Scitovsky, A.A., 'The high cost of dying': what do the data show? 1984. Milbank Quarterly, 2005. 83(4): p. 825-841. 149.Bernard, A.M., et al., What do internal medicine residents need to enhance their diabetes care? Diabetes Care, 1999. 22(5): p. 661-666. 150.Wu, P.-H., et al., Relationship of blood pressure control and hospitalization risk to medication adherence among patients with hypertension in Taiwan. American Journal of Hypertension, 2010. 23(2): p. 155-160. 151.Garcea, G., et al., A systematic review of the impact of volume of hepatic surgery on patient outcome. Surgery, 2009. 145(5): p. 467-475. 152.Chowdhury, M.M., H. Dagash, and A. Pierro, A systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome. British Journal of Surgery, 2007. 94(2): p. 145-161. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/65797 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 背景:多重慢性病患者照護品質的提升是目前各國健康照護體系所面臨的重要挑戰,隨著論成效計酬政策逐漸被各國醫療體系所採用,其對於多重共病症病人衝擊的瞭解至今仍非常有限。我國慢性疾病醫療給付改善方案已實施多年,然相關研究多針對給付設計評估績效衡量指標之成效,而對於相關併發症之發生及醫療費用之影響則較少見。
目的:高血壓及糖尿病皆為我國高盛行率及高醫療費用支出的疾病,且兩種疾病對於病人的疾病管理目標具有高度相關性。因此本研究同時以兩項方案為例,評估我國慢性疾病醫療給付改善方案在降低或延緩相關併發症發生之成效,及比較不同方案對併發症預防成效之差異,並進一步分析兩項方案對不同共病症病人併發症預防成效及併發症相關醫療費用之衝擊。 方法:以國家衛生研究院100萬人抽樣歸人檔之2001-2009年健保申報資料,運用傾向分數分析法的配對方式,校正論成效計酬方案逆選擇現象可能產生的選樣偏誤後,以羅吉斯迴歸分析評估醫療給付改善方案對急性冠心症、心臟衰竭、腦中風及慢性腎衰竭等四種高血壓及糖尿病的共同且主要併發症之預防成效,以複迴歸分析探討方案對四種併發症1年內相關醫療費用的影響,並以布瓦松迴歸分析方案介入對其醫療利用的改變情形。 結果:糖尿病醫療給付改善方案對於併發症發生機率的降低主要呈現在心臟衰竭及腦中風兩種疾病;急性冠心症雖未達統計顯著水準(p=0.060),但其改變符合預期之方向。而對於併發症相關醫療費用的減少則主要呈現在慢性腎衰竭,且主要是受到門診就醫次數減少的影響。高血壓方案對於併發症的預防成效,雖同時呈現在急性冠心症及腦中風,但進一步區分不同共病症組別,可以發現對於「高血壓+糖尿病+高血脂」組別病人而言,其腦中風發生機率的降低主要仍僅受到糖尿病方案的影響;而高血壓方案對於併發症相關醫療費用的減少,主要呈現在急性冠心症,但較無法明確歸因是受到醫療利用改變的影響。兩項方案對不同共病症病人預防併發症發生的成效,在同時罹患高血壓及糖尿病兩種疾病的共病症組別特別顯著,但在併發症相關醫療費用方面,受到併發症個案數少之限制,僅能針對整體病人進行分析,無法進一步探討對不同共病症病人之影響。此外,兩項方案對於部分併發症預防成效的影響存在效應修飾作用;大致而言,高血壓方案對預防併發症發生及減少相關醫療費用的成效,常需在病人同時有參加糖尿病方案的情況下才能達統計顯著差異,但糖尿病方案的成效,卻能在病人從未參加高血壓方案的情況下呈現統計顯著差異。 結論:兩種慢性疾病醫療給付改善方案對預防併發症發生及減少相關醫療費用皆有影響,但糖尿病方案有較佳的推行成效。本研究根據分析之結果,建議相關主管機關後續應持續發展並推動相關論質計酬方案。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Introduction: Improving the quality of care delivered to individuals with multiple chronic conditions is among the important challenges our health care system faces. While the use of pay for performance (P4P) in healthcare is increasing, little is known about the impact of these programs on persons with multiple comorbidities. In Taiwan, P4P programs for chronic diseases have been implemented for several years. Most studies evaluated the effects of these programs by measuring the performance indicators of payments, but little was undertaken to explore the impacts on complications and related medical costs.
Objectives: Hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM) are both diseases with high prevalences, high medical expenditures and high relationship with similar management goals of diseases. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of hypertension and DM P4P programs, and explored the impact of these two programs on the incidence rates and the medical costs of related complications among patients with different comorbidities. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the claims database of the National Health Insurance from 2001 to 2009 was performed. Propensity score matching method was applied to adjust for the characteristics to minimize the effects of selection bias. Logistic regression models, multiple linear regression models and poisson regression models were constructed separately to explore the effects of the two P4P programs on the incidence rates, the medial costs and the medical utilizations of acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, stroke and chronic renal failure. Results: The DM P4P program decreased the incidence rates of heart failure and stroke. Although the impact on the incidence rate of acute coronary syndromes was not statistically significant, the tendency of prevention effect existed. The DM P4P program could also save the medical costs of chronic renal failure by decreasing related outpatient visits. For hypertension P4P program, it reduced the incidence rates of acute coronary syndromes and stroke, and decreased the medical cost of acute coronary syndromes. The complication prevention effects of the two P4P programs were most significant on patients comorbid with both hypertension and DM. Besides, the effect modification partially existed. The impact of hypertension P4P program on the reduction of the incidence rates and the related medical costs of complications were significant only when patients also participated in DM P4P program. However, the effect of DM P4P program could be statistically significant even when patients did not participate in hypertension P4P program. Conclusions: Although both the hypertension and DM P4P programs present impacts on complications, the overall impact of DM P4P program was greater than that of hypertension P4P program. Our findings suggest that policy makers could continuously develop and implement related P4P program in the future. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T00:12:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-D94843001-1.pdf: 4594059 bytes, checksum: 67a9adac217b1363271ca6811a0c5395 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 i
Abstract iii 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與研究動機 1 第二節 研究目的與研究問題 5 第三節 研究重要性與預期貢獻 8 第二章 文獻探討 10 第一節 高血壓及糖尿病相關併發症 10 第二節 共病症與醫療品質 15 第三節 論成效計酬 25 第四節 我國慢性疾病醫療給付改善方案相關研究 30 第五節 病人參加論成效計酬方案之預測因子 35 第六節 傾向分數 38 第三章 研究方法 46 第一節 研究設計與研究架構 46 第二節 研究假說 51 第三節 研究對象與資料來源 53 第四節 資料處理說明 55 第五節 研究變項的操作型定義 58 第六節 資料分析方法 62 第四章 研究結果 64 第一節 研究對象配對前後之基本特性及就醫特性分布比較 64 第二節 醫療給付改善方案參加情形與結果變項之雙變項分析結果 77 第三節 醫療給付改善方案對預防併發症發生之影響 86 第四節 醫療給付改善方案對併發症相關醫療費用之影響 118 第五節 醫療給付改善方案對併發症相關醫療利用之影響 123 第五章 討論 133 第一節 研究方法之討論 133 第二節 醫療給付改善方案影響併發症發生情形之討論 135 第三節 醫療給付改善方案影響併發症相關醫療費用之討論 139 第四節 醫療給付改善方案影響併發症相關醫療利用之討論 142 第五節 研究限制 144 第六章 結論與建議 146 第一節 結論 146 第二節 建議 148 參考文獻 150 附錄一:全民健康保險糖尿病醫療給付改善方案 164 附錄二:全民健康保險高血壓醫療給付改善方案 176 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 慢性疾病醫療給付改善方案對不同共病症病人併發症之影響—以高血壓及糖尿病為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The impact of hypertension and diabetes mellitus pay-for-performance programs on complications among patients with different comorbidities | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 100-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 鄭守夏,鍾國彪,李玉春,吳肖琪 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 高血壓,糖尿病,論質計酬,共病症,併發症,傾向分數, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | hypertension,diabetes mellitus,pay for performance,comorbidity,complication,propensity score, | en |
dc.relation.page | 181 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2012-07-12 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 健康政策與管理研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 健康政策與管理研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-100-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 4.49 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。