ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2020
[Impact of the chronic disease care program on social determinants of health in Asturias.]
Article in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Abordaje y atención a la cronicidad con tecnologías digitales en las políticas sanitarias en España].Revista espanola de salud publica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveProviding care for people with chronic diseases is a challenge requiring institutional programs and strategies, thus it necessary to evaluate the impact of the same on the social determinants of health (SDH). The aims were: 1) to describe the impact of the structural determinants of the Health Strategy for the Population with Chronic Diseases (EAPEC) in Asturias and 2) to propose actions for improvement regarding social stratification factors.
methodsQualitative study of six strategic programs of the Chronic Disease Strategy: Health Observatory, Social and Healthcare Coordination, School for Patients Program, Caregivers Program, Mental Health Services Continuity, and Quality and Safety in Healthcare. A screening tool was used, validated for evaluation of the health impact on the structural determinants (socioeconomic and political context and social stratification factors) of the SDH. A personal semi-structured interview was carried out with the manager of each program in 2016, and a final report was produced that included the impacts found and proposals for improvement.
resultsAll programs had a positive impact on social values (social justice, equity) and the state of wellbeing (social and educational policies). In terms of social stratification, the principal positive effects included age and functional diversity. Regarding the factors linked to geographic location, gender, origin/ethnicity, and social class the principal effects were negative.
conclusionsThis strategy aimed at people with chronic diseases has positive effects. However, paying attention to social stratification factors during implementation of the same is a priority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32391809PMC11582891What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.