The association between chronic disease resource utilization and illness uncertainty in COPD patients: a latent profile analysis


Abstract

Objective: This study aims to identify distinct patterns of chronic disease resource utilization among patients with COPD and explore the association between these patterns and illness uncertainty. Design: A cross-sectional study. Methods: This study enrolled COPD patients hospitalized in the Department of Respiratory Medicine at a tertiary hospital in Zhejiang Province, China, between April and December 2023. All participants completed a general information questionnaire, the Chronic Illness Resource Survey (CIRS), and the Mishel Illness Uncertainty Scale (MUIS). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize chronic disease resource utilization patterns. Hierarchical linear regression analysis was then performed to examine the association between resource utilization and illness uncertainty. Results: This study included 308 participants. Analysis of chronic disease resource utilization identified two latent classes: " Poor utilization group " (n=209) and "Effective utilization group" (n=99). A significant association was observed between resource utilization categories and illness uncertainty (R²=0.587, p<0.001). Conclusions: Healthcare providers should identify patients with distinct characteristics, clarify their chronic disease resource utilization patterns, and implement targeted interventions to facilitate their access to adequate disease support resources, thereby reducing illness uncertainty levels. Implications: Understanding the varying levels of resource utilization based on COPD patients' preferences can assist healthcare providers and related industries in delivering personalized support tailored to individual patient needs, thereby reducing illness-related uncertainty.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].