Effect of lifestyle intervention for people with diabetes or prediabetes in real-world primary care: propensity score analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many lifestyle interventions for patients with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been investigated in randomised clinical trial settings. However, the translation of these programmes into primary care seems challenging and the prevalence of T2DM is increasing. Therefore, there is an urgent need for lifestyle programmes, developed and shown to be effective in real-world primary care. We evaluated a lifestyle programme, commissioned by the Dutch government, for patients with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes in primary care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a retrospective comparative medical records analysis using propensity score matching. Patients with prediabetes or T2DM were selected from ten primary healthcare centres. Patients who received the lifestyle intervention (n = 186) were compared with a matched group of patients who received usual care (n = 2632). Data were extracted from the electronic primary care records. Propensity score matching was used to control for confounding by indication. Outcome measures were exercise level, BMI, HbA1c, fasting glucose, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, HDL and LDL cholesterol and triglycerides and the follow-up period was one year.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was no significant difference at follow-up in any outcome measure between either group. The reduction at one year follow-up of HbA1c and fasting glucose was positive in the intervention group compared with controls, although not statistically significant (-0.12%, <it>P </it>= 0.07 and -0.17 mmol/l, <it>P </it>= 0.08 respectively).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The effects of the lifestyle programme in real-world primary care for patients with prediabetes or T2DM were small and not statistically significant. The attention of governments for lifestyle interventions is important, but from the available literature and the results of this study, it must be concluded that improving lifestyle in real-world primary care is still challenging.</p

Consultation performance of general practitioners when supported by an asthma/COPDC-service

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>General practitioners (GPs) can refer patients to an asthma/COPD service (AC-service) for diagnostic assessment of spirometry and medical history and for asthma or COPD monitoring. The AC-service reports diagnostic results and additional information about disease burden (BORG-score for complaints, MRC-dyspnoea score, exacerbation rate), life style, medication and compliance, to the patient’s GP. This study explores how GPs use this additional information when discussing the patient’s disease burden and how this influences GPs’ information and education provision during consultations with asthma/COPD patients.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Patients with (a suspicion of) asthma or COPD were referred to an AC-service and consulted their GPs after they had received a report from the AC-service. Retrospectively patients answered questions about their GPs’ performance during these consultations. Performances were compared with performances of the same GPs during consultations without support of the AC-service (usual care), earlier that year.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of consultations not initiated by an AC-service check-up, 91% focussed on complaints, the initial reason for the consultation. In AC-service supported follow-up consultations, GPs explored disease burden when the (BORG-)score for complaints was high - as reported by the AC-service - even when patients themselves thought it was irrelevant. GPs put significantly less effort in exploring disease burden when the Borg-score was low (BORG 3–4: 69%; BORG1-2: 51%, <it>p = 0,01</it>). GPs mostly ignored MRC-dyspnoea scores: attention to dyspnoea was 18% for MRC-score <3 and 25% for MRC-score ≥3 (<it>p = 0,63).</it> GPs encouraged physical fitness in 13% of patients. Smoking behaviour was discussed with 66% of the actual smokers but only 14% remembered a stop smoking advice. Furthermore, pharmacotherapeutic management education in AC-service supported consultations did not differ from performance in usual care according to patient evaluations.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Other than taking into account the severity of complaints, there was no difference between GPs’ performance in AC-service supported and in usual care consultations. AC-service reports are thus not effective by themselves. GPs should be encouraged to use the information better and systematically check all relevant aspects that characterize the disease burden of their patients.</p