Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Features of the Chronic Care Model (CCM) Associated with Behavioral Counseling and Diabetes Care in Community Primary Care

Pamela A. Ohman Strickland, Shawna V. Hudson, Alicja Piasecki, Karissa Hahn, Deborah Cohen, A. John Orzano, Michael L. Parchman and Benjamin F. Crabtree
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2010, 23 (3) 295-305; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2010.03.090141
Pamela A. Ohman Strickland
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shawna V. Hudson
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alicja Piasecki
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karissa Hahn
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deborah Cohen
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. John Orzano
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael L. Parchman
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benjamin F. Crabtree
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Chronic Care Model Operational Definitions and Items Used to Describe Them*

    TermDefinitionAverage Practice Score (SD)Descriptive Items
    Practice organizationAn organization that provides safe, high-quality care with leadership that encourages efforts to improve care0.04 (1.00)
    • People in our practice actively seek new ways to improve how we do things.†

    • The practice leadership makes sure that we have the time and space necessary to discuss changes to improve care.†

    • Most people in this practice are willing to change how they do things in response to feedback from others.†

    Behavioral change supportEffective behavior change support is used to help patients and families improve their health behavior0.00 (0.43)
    • Use of patient questionnaire at either the first visit or routine visits to identify patients who may benefit from counseling for eating habits, physical activity, smoking, alcohol use and cancer screening (maximum across first and routine-use responses and then averaged across behavior categories).‡

    • Refer out for counseling or screening (averaged across behavior categories).‡

    • Use nurses or health educators within the practice for individual counseling or use group counseling activities (averaged across behavior categories).‡

    • Frequency with which practices use a process or system for reminding patients about visits.§

    Delivery system designOrganizational features of the practice assure well-planned visits and impact the provision of care0.00 (0.46)
    • Frequency of clinical meetings.‖

    • Inclusion of staff members with different roles in the clinical meetings.¶

    • Continuity of care: When patient gets sick, they contact the practice first (before going to specialist or emergency room)**

    Decision supportClinicians have convenient access to the latest evidence-based guidelines and specialist expertise is integrated into the practice0.04 (0.57)
    • Computers are used for retrieving information, either through PDAs, online literature searching, a CD-based medical knowledge base or the Internet††

    • Use of chart audit for chronic diseases or cancer screening‡

    • Use of nurses and health educators‡

    Clinical information systemsData about patients is organized to facilitate efficient and effective care0.01 (0.77)
    • A registry for chronic diseases.‡

    • A process for identifying patients due for screening or tests.‡

    • A process to prompt clinicians at the time of visits about needed tests or additional visits.‡

    • Risk factor chart stickers or electronic flags‡

    • Checklists or flowcharts‡

    • * Average component scores were created as an average of z-scores from items used to assess each component.

    • † Practice Staff Questionnaire (PSQ), each item scored on a 1 to 5 scale, “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

    • ‡ PSQ, each item scored on a 1 to 5 scale, “never used” to “always used.”

    • § Clinical Management Survey (CMS), scored on a 1 to 5 scale, “never used” to “always used.”

    • ‖ CMS, scored on a 1 to 5 scale, “weekly,” “monthly,” “quarterly,” “annually,” “never.”

    • ¶ CMS, a count of the types of staff in attendance: physicians, other clinicians, nursing staff, office staff.

    • ** Patient survey, scored 1 to 5, “never” to “always.”

    • †† PSQ, 0 or 1 for “not used” or “used.”

    • PDA, personal digital assistant.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Characteristics of the Combined Sample of 674 Patients Sampled Across 25 SCOPE Practices, Along with Summaries of Subpopulations of Patients Within Each Weight Category as Well as of Patients with Diabetes (Regardless of Weight Status)

    Patient CharacteristicOverall (n = 674)Normal (n = 183)Overweight (n = 218)Obese (n = 273)Diabetic (n = 196)
    Age*64.1 (10.1)64.21 (11.5)66.0 (10.3)62.5 (8.6)64.9 (10.0)
    Sex (male)267 (39.6)58 (31.7)108 (49.5)101 (37.0)89 (45.4)
    Race
        White471 (69.9)142 (77.6)148 (67.9)181 (66.3)105 (53.6)
        Black121 (18.0)18 (9.8)40 (18.4)63 (23.1)59 (30.1)
        Hispanic46 (6.8)6 (3.3)22 (10.1)18 (6.6)16 (8.2)
        Other32 (4.8)16 (8.7)6 (2.8)10 (3.7)12 (6.1)
        Unknown4 (0.6)1 (0.6)2 (0.9)1 (0.4)4 (2.0)
    Education
        <High school72 (10.7)14 (7.7)22 (10.1)36 (13.2)33 (16.8)
        High school or some college326 (48.4)71 (38.8)106 (48.6)149 (54.6)101 (51.5)
        College or graduate school273 (40.5)97 (53.0)90 (41.3)86 (31.5)60 (30.6)
        Unknown3 (0.5)1 (0.6)0 (0)2 (0.7)2 (1.0)
    Marital status
        Married424 (62.9)114 (62.3)150 (68.8)160 (58.6)111 (56.6)
        Not married250 (37.1)69 (37.7)68 (31.2)113 (41.4)85 (43.4)
    Insurance status
        Medicare257 (38.1)68 (37.2)88 (40.4)101 (37.0)84 (42.9)
        Medicaid33 (4.9)5 (2.7)11 (5.1)17 (6.2)13 (6.6)
        Private317 (47.0)97 (53.0)99 (45.4)121 (44.3)74 (37.8)
        Other30 (4.5)7 (3.83.0)9 (4.1)14 (5.1)7 (3.6)
        None29 (4.3)4 (2.2)10 (4.6)15 (5.5)18 (9.2)
        Unknown8 (1.2)2 (1.1)1 (0.5)5 (1.8)0 (0)
    Global health*2.29 (0.61)2.16 (0.62)2.26 (0.64)2.41 (0.55)2.54 (0.54)
    Physical health*2.34 (0.63)2.16 (0.66)2.30 (0.64)2.50 (0.57)2.65 (0.54)
    Emotional health*2.14 (0.66)2.11 (0.61)2.06 (0.69)2.22 (0.66)2.30 (0.67)
    Visits during past 2 years (n)*7.57 (5.29)6.64 (4.62)7.42 (4.77)8.32 (5.97)8.73 (5.94)
    Diabetes assessment––––91 (46.4)
    Diabetes treatment––––99 (50.5)
    At least 2 out of 3 diabetes outcomes at target––––84 (42.9)
    Received diet or weight loss counseling––118 (53.4)212 (77.7)137 (69.90)
    Received physical activity counseling––127 (57.5)191 (70.0)137 (69.90)
    • Data presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

    • * Data presented as mean (SD).

    • –, these n (%) are not provided as these services or targets are not recommended per guidelines for these groups of patients.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Hypothesis 1: Odds Ratios and Confidence Intervals Describing the Relationship between Chronic Care Model Implementation, as a Whole and as Subcomponents, and Diabetes Care and Behavioral Counseling for Overweight/Obese Patients*

    Patient ServicesComprehensive CCM Implementation (odds ratio [CI])CCM Implementation by Component (odds ratio [CI])
    Decision SupportClinical Information SystemsPractice Organization (Openness to innovation)Behavioral Change SupportDelivery Systems
    Patients with diabetes (n = 196)
        Assessment* (y = 91)1.90 (1.17–3.08)1.06 (0.28–4.01)1.42 (0.85–2.36)1.73 (0.91–3.28)1.15 (0.47–2.78)0.89 (0.59–1.34)
        Treatment† (y = 99)1.79 (1.12–2.86)0.90 (0.18–4.45)1.33 (0.77–2.30)1.41 (0.74–2.68)1.47 (0.53–4.04)1.0045 (0.55–1.83)
        Targets (at least 2 out of 3)‡ (y = 84)1.20 (0.86–1.67)0.78 (0.19–3.36)1.55 (1.04–2.29)1.044 (0.66–1.65)1.06 (0.57–1.97)0.99 (0.74–1.34)
        Diet or weight-loss counseling (y = 137)1.03 (0.63–1.70)1.44 (0.63–3.30)0.92 (0.71–1.19)0.79 (0.47–1.31)0.91 (0.51–1.63)1.58 (1.12–2.23)
        Physical activity counseling (y = 137)0.95 (0.82–1.09)0.60 (0.26–1.39)1.16 (0.78–1.72)0.82 (0.62–1.09)1.06 (0.76–1.48)1.22 (0.92–1.64)
    Obese or overweight patients (with or without diabetes; n = 491)
        Diet or weight loss counseling (y = 330)1.09 (0.92–1.28)1.20 (0.69–2.08)1.03 (0.77–1.38)0.96 (0.77–1.20)0.9975 (0.74–1.34)1.06 (0.81–1.39)
        Physical activity counseling (y = 318)1.35 (1.12–1.63)0.89 (0.51–1.54)1.18 (0.87–1.59)1.14 (0.94–1.39)1.34 (1.06–1.69)1.13 (0.89–1.45)
    Obese or overweight patients with diabetes (n = 166)
        Diet or weight-loss counseling (y = 126)1.02 (0.65–1.60)1.60 (0.77–3.35)1.02 (0.73–1.41)0.76 (0.53–1.09)0.74 (0.50–1.12)1.38 (0.87–2.20)
        Physical activity counseling (y = 123)0.96 (0.76–1.22)0.82 (0.29–2.31)1.37 (0.85–2.20)0.79 (0.52–1.19)0.93 (0.58–1.48)1.12 (0.78–1.61)
    Obese or overweight patients without diabetes (n = 325)
        Diet or weight loss counseling (y = 204)1.15 (0.99–1.34)1.03 (0.49–2.20)1.01 (0.69–1.48)1.09 (0.85–1.38)1.13 (0.79–1.61)1.01 (0.66–1.55)
        Physical activity counseling (y = 195)1.51 (1.17–1.95)0.81 (0.45–1.45)1.13 (0.82–1.56)1.39 (1.04–1.86)1.55 (1.12–2.15)1.23 (0.91–1.66)
    • * Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) assessed within the last 6 months, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) assessed within the last 12 months, and blood pressure checked during each of the last 3 visits.

    • † HbA1c<7.0 or HbA1c ≥7.0 and taking hypoglycemic medication; LDL ≤100 >100 and taking lipid-lowering medication; and blood pressure ≤130/85 or, if not, then taking hypertensive medication.

    • ‡ HbA1c<7.0; LDL ≤100; and blood pressure ≤130/85.

    • CCM, Chronic Care Model.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Hypothesis 2: Odds Ratios and Confidence Intervals Describing the Relationship between Chronic Care Model Implementation and Diabetes Care and Behavioral Counseling for Overweight/Obese Patients for Practice with Low and High Levels of Openness to Innovation*

    Patient ServicesOpenness to Innovation among Practices (odds ratio [CI])
    LowHigh
    Patients with diabetes (n = 196)
        Assessment†1.52 (0.79–2.92)1.84 (1.02–3.32)
        Treatment‡2.09 (0.77–5.66)2.06 (1.27–3.34)
        Target (at least 2 out of 3)§1.19 (0.51–2.76)1.71 (0.13–2.58)
        Diet or weight loss counseling1.27 (0.71–2.26)1.19 (0.73–1.95)
        Physical activity counseling1.17 (0.73–1.87)1.30 (0.91–1.87)
    Obese or overweight patients (with or without diabetes; n = 491)
        Diet or weight loss counseling1.15 (0.97–1.37)1.03 (0.86–1.25)
        Physical activity counseling1.30 (0.94–1.79)1.60 (1.23–2.09)
    • * Odds ratios represent the odds of appropriate service for patients within practices at the 75th percentile versus the 25th percentile of implementation of either the comprehensive Chronic Care Model or its components.

    • † Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) assessed within the last 6 months, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) assessed within the last 12 months, and blood pressure (BP) checked during each of the last 3 visits.

    • ‡ HbA1c<7.0 or HbA1c ≥7.0 and taking hypoglycemic medication; LDL ≤100 or LDL >100 and taking lipid-lowering medication; and BP ≤130/85 or, if not, then taking hypertensive medication.

    • § HbA1c<7.0; LDL ≤100; and BP ≤130/85.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: 23 (3)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 23, Issue 3
May-June 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Features of the Chronic Care Model (CCM) Associated with Behavioral Counseling and Diabetes Care in Community Primary Care
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
7 + 13 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Features of the Chronic Care Model (CCM) Associated with Behavioral Counseling and Diabetes Care in Community Primary Care
Pamela A. Ohman Strickland, Shawna V. Hudson, Alicja Piasecki, Karissa Hahn, Deborah Cohen, A. John Orzano, Michael L. Parchman, Benjamin F. Crabtree
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2010, 23 (3) 295-305; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.03.090141

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Features of the Chronic Care Model (CCM) Associated with Behavioral Counseling and Diabetes Care in Community Primary Care
Pamela A. Ohman Strickland, Shawna V. Hudson, Alicja Piasecki, Karissa Hahn, Deborah Cohen, A. John Orzano, Michael L. Parchman, Benjamin F. Crabtree
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2010, 23 (3) 295-305; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.03.090141
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Diabetes care components effectively implemented in the ASEAN health systems: an umbrella review of systematic reviews
  • Low-Intensity Intervention Supports Diabetes Registry Implementation: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in the Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN)
  • Conformity of Diabetes Mobile apps with the Chronic Care Model
  • Patients living with disabilities: The need for high-quality primary care
  • Physician Recommendation and Patient Adherence for Colorectal Cancer Screening
  • The Chronic Care Model and Exercise Discussions during Primary Care Diabetes Encounters
  • Policy and Financing in Family Medicine and the Medical Home
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
  • A Pilot Comparison of Clinical Data Collection Methods Using Paper, Electronic Health Record Prompt, and a Smartphone Application
  • Associations Between Modifiable Preconception Care Indicators and Pregnancy Outcomes
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire