Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare generic and disease-specific self-care measures in patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) in the three dimensions of self-care maintenance, monitoring, and management.
METHODS: Multicentre cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Patients aged 65 and over with MCCs. We used Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory to measure generic self-care, Self-care of Diabetes Inventory to measure self-care in diabetes mellitus, Self-Care of Heart Failure (HF) Index to measure self-care in HF, and Self-Care of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Inventory to measure self-care in chronic lung diseases.
RESULTS: We recruited 896 patients. Multimorbid patients with diabetes had lower scores on the self-care maintenance scale, and diabetic patients in insulin treatment on the generic management scale than on the disease-specific instrument. Multimorbid patients with HF or chronic lung diseases scored higher on generic self-care maintenance and monitoring scales than disease-specific ones. There was a partial consistency between the generic and disease-specific self-care maintenance and management. Inadequate behaviours were recorded in disease-specific self-care monitoring rather than generic ones.
CONCLUSIONS: Older patients affected by MCCs scored differently in the generic and disease-specific instruments, showing inadequate self-care in some of the three self-care dimensions.
UNASSIGNED: The choice between generic and disease-specific instruments to use in clinical practice and research should be made considering the specific aims, settings, patients characteristics, and knowledge of the different performance of the instruments by users.
CONCLUSIONS: No study has described and compared generic and specific self-care measures in patients affected by MCCs. Knowing these differences can help nurses choose the most suitable measure for their aims, context, and patients and plan generic and disease-specific self-care educational interventions for those behaviours in which MCCs patients perform poorly.
UNASSIGNED: Patients were informed about the study, provided informed consent, and answered questionnaires through interviews.
METHODS: Multicentre cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Patients aged 65 and over with MCCs. We used Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory to measure generic self-care, Self-care of Diabetes Inventory to measure self-care in diabetes mellitus, Self-Care of Heart Failure (HF) Index to measure self-care in HF, and Self-Care of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Inventory to measure self-care in chronic lung diseases.
RESULTS: We recruited 896 patients. Multimorbid patients with diabetes had lower scores on the self-care maintenance scale, and diabetic patients in insulin treatment on the generic management scale than on the disease-specific instrument. Multimorbid patients with HF or chronic lung diseases scored higher on generic self-care maintenance and monitoring scales than disease-specific ones. There was a partial consistency between the generic and disease-specific self-care maintenance and management. Inadequate behaviours were recorded in disease-specific self-care monitoring rather than generic ones.
CONCLUSIONS: Older patients affected by MCCs scored differently in the generic and disease-specific instruments, showing inadequate self-care in some of the three self-care dimensions.
UNASSIGNED: The choice between generic and disease-specific instruments to use in clinical practice and research should be made considering the specific aims, settings, patients characteristics, and knowledge of the different performance of the instruments by users.
CONCLUSIONS: No study has described and compared generic and specific self-care measures in patients affected by MCCs. Knowing these differences can help nurses choose the most suitable measure for their aims, context, and patients and plan generic and disease-specific self-care educational interventions for those behaviours in which MCCs patients perform poorly.
UNASSIGNED: Patients were informed about the study, provided informed consent, and answered questionnaires through interviews.
摘要：
目的：在自我护理维持的三个维度上，描述和比较患有多种慢性病（MCC）的患者的通用和特定疾病的自我护理措施，监测,和管理。
方法：多中心横断面研究。
方法：65岁及以上的MCC患者。我们使用慢性病自我护理量表来衡量一般自我护理，糖尿病自我护理量表测量糖尿病自我护理，心力衰竭自我护理（HF）指数来衡量HF的自我护理，慢性阻塞性肺疾病自我护理量表测量慢性肺疾病自我护理。
结果：我们招募了896名患者。糖尿病患者在自我护理维持量表上得分较低，和糖尿病患者在胰岛素治疗上的通用管理量表比在疾病特异性仪器上。患有HF或慢性肺部疾病的多种患者在通用自我护理维持和监测量表上的得分高于疾病特异性量表。通用和特定疾病的自我护理维持和管理之间存在部分一致性。在特定疾病的自我护理监测中记录了不适当的行为，而不是通用的行为。
结论：受MCC影响的老年患者在通用和疾病特异性仪器中得分不同，在三个自我照顾维度中的一些方面表现出自我照顾不足。
■在临床实践和研究中使用的通用和疾病特异性仪器之间的选择应考虑具体目标，设置，患者特征,以及用户对仪器不同性能的了解。
结论：没有研究描述和比较受MCC影响的患者的通用和特定自我护理措施。了解这些差异可以帮助护士为他们的目标选择最合适的措施，context,和患者，并计划针对MCC患者表现不佳的行为进行通用和特定疾病的自我护理教育干预。
■患者被告知该研究，提供知情同意，并通过访谈回答问卷。
方法：多中心横断面研究。
方法：65岁及以上的MCC患者。我们使用慢性病自我护理量表来衡量一般自我护理，糖尿病自我护理量表测量糖尿病自我护理，心力衰竭自我护理（HF）指数来衡量HF的自我护理，慢性阻塞性肺疾病自我护理量表测量慢性肺疾病自我护理。
结果：我们招募了896名患者。糖尿病患者在自我护理维持量表上得分较低，和糖尿病患者在胰岛素治疗上的通用管理量表比在疾病特异性仪器上。患有HF或慢性肺部疾病的多种患者在通用自我护理维持和监测量表上的得分高于疾病特异性量表。通用和特定疾病的自我护理维持和管理之间存在部分一致性。在特定疾病的自我护理监测中记录了不适当的行为，而不是通用的行为。
结论：受MCC影响的老年患者在通用和疾病特异性仪器中得分不同，在三个自我照顾维度中的一些方面表现出自我照顾不足。
■在临床实践和研究中使用的通用和疾病特异性仪器之间的选择应考虑具体目标，设置，患者特征,以及用户对仪器不同性能的了解。
结论：没有研究描述和比较受MCC影响的患者的通用和特定自我护理措施。了解这些差异可以帮助护士为他们的目标选择最合适的措施，context,和患者，并计划针对MCC患者表现不佳的行为进行通用和特定疾病的自我护理教育干预。
■患者被告知该研究，提供知情同意，并通过访谈回答问卷。
