Self-Efficacy, Problem Solving, and Social-Environmental Support Are Associated With Diabetes Self-Management Behaviors

OBJECTIVE — To evaluate associations between psychosocial and social-environmental variables and diabetes self-management, and diabetes control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS — Baseline data from a type 2 diabetes self-management randomized trial with 463 adults having elevated BMI (M 34.8 kg/m2) were used to investigate relations among demographic, psychosocial, and social-environmental variables; dietary, exercise, and medication-taking behaviors; and biologic outcomes. RESULTS — Self-efficacy, problem solving, and social-environmental support were indepen-dently associated with diet and exercise, increasing the variance accounted for by 23 and 19%, respectively. Only diet contributed to explained variance in BMI ( 0.17, P 0.0003) and self-rated health status ( 0.25, P 0.0001); and only medication-taking behaviors contrib-uted to lipid ratio (total–to–HDL) (0.20, P 0.0001) and A1C (0.21, P 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS — Interventions should focus on enhancing self-efficacy, problem solving, and social-environmental support to improve self-management of diabetes. Diabetes Care 33:751–753, 2010 D iabetes management requires coor-dination between the patient andthe primary care team. Given the lifestyle changes required for self-management success, patient, social, and environmental factors, including health care (1) and community support (2), are increasingly recognized as important. Un-derstanding relations among demo-graphic, psychosocial, and social-environmental variables, and multiple health risk behaviors is critical to devel-oping interventions that will sustain health behavior changes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS — Baseline data were col-lected as part of a patient randomized trial to evaluate the impact of an interactive, multimedia diabetes self-management program relative to “enhanced ” usual car

Clinical and Behavioral Correlates of Achieving and Maintaining Glycemic Targets in an Underserved Population With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE—In an underserved Latino area, we established a disease-management program and proved its effectiveness. However, many patients still remained above target. This study was designed to evaluate which factors are associated with reaching program goals

The Diabetes Manual trial protocol – a cluster randomized controlled trial of a self-management intervention for type 2 diabetes [ISRCTN06315411]

Background The Diabetes Manual is a type 2 diabetes self-management programme based upon the clinically effective 'Heart Manual'. The 12 week programme is a complex intervention theoretically underpinned by self-efficacy theory. It is a one to one intervention meeting United Kingdom requirements for structured diabetes-education and is delivered within routine primary care. Methods/design In a two-group cluster randomized controlled trial, GP practices are allocated by computer minimisation to an intervention group or a six-month deferred intervention group. We aim to recruit 250 participants from 50 practices across central England. Eligibility criteria are adults able to undertake the programme with type 2 diabetes, not taking insulin, with HbA1c over 8% (first 12 months) and following an agreed protocol change over 7% (months 13 to 18). Following randomisation, intervention nurses receive two-day training and delivered the Diabetes Manual programme to participants. Deferred intervention nurses receive the training following six-month follow-up. Primary outcome is HbA1c with total and HDL cholesterol; blood pressure, body mass index; self-efficacy and quality of life as additional outcomes. Primary analysis is between-group HbA1c differences at 6 months powered to give 80% power to detect a difference in HbA1c of 0.6%. A 12 month cohort analysis will assess maintenance of effect and assess relationship between self-efficacy and outcomes, and a qualitative study is running alongside. Discussion This trial incorporates educational and psychological diabetes interventions into a single programme and assesses both clinical and psychosocial outcomes. The trial will increase our understanding of intervention transferability between conditions, those diabetes related health behaviours that are more or less susceptible to change through efficacy enhancing mechanisms and how this impacts on clinical outcomes

Diabetes Distress but Not Clinical Depression or Depressive Symptoms Is Associated With Glycemic Control in Both Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analyses

ObjectiveTo determine the concurrent, prospective, and time-concordant relationships among major depressive disorder (MDD), depressive symptoms, and diabetes distress with glycemic control.Research design and methodsIn a noninterventional study, we assessed 506 type 2 diabetic patients for MDD (Composite International Diagnostic Interview), for depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression), and for diabetes distress (Diabetes Distress Scale), along with self-management, stress, demographics, and diabetes status, at baseline and 9 and 18 months later. Using multilevel modeling (MLM), we explored the cross-sectional relationships of the three affective variables with A1C, the prospective relationships of baseline variables with change in A1C over time, and the time-concordant relationships with A1C.ResultsAll three affective variables were moderately intercorrelated, although the relationship between depressive symptoms and diabetes distress was greater than the relationship of either with MDD. In the cross-sectional MLM, only diabetes distress but not MDD or depressive symptoms was significantly associated with A1C. None of the three affective variables were linked with A1C in prospective analyses. Only diabetes distress displayed significant time-concordant relationships with A1C.ConclusionsWe found no concurrent or longitudinal association between MDD or depressive symptoms with A1C, whereas both concurrent and time-concordant relationships were found between diabetes distress and A1C. What has been called "depression" among type 2 diabetic patients may really be two conditions, MDD and diabetes distress, with only the latter displaying significant associations with A1C. Ongoing evaluation of both diabetes distress and MDD may be helpful in clinical settings

The combined diabetes and renal control trial (C-DIRECT) - a feasibility randomised controlled trial to evaluate outcomes in multi-morbid patients with diabetes and on dialysis using a mixed methods approach

Background: This cluster randomised controlled trial set out to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the “Combined Diabetes and Renal Control Trial” (C-DIRECT) intervention, a nurse-led intervention based on motivational interviewing and self-management in patients with coexisting end stage renal diseases and diabetes mellitus (DM ESRD). Its efficacy to improve glycaemic control, as well as psychosocial and self-care outcomes were also evaluated as secondary outcomes. Methods: An assessor-blinded, clustered randomised-controlled trial was conducted with 44 haemodialysis patients with DM ESRD and ≥ 8% glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), in dialysis centres across Singapore. Patients were randomised according to dialysis shifts. 20 patients were assigned to intervention and 24 were in usual care. The C-DIRECT intervention consisted of three weekly chair-side sessions delivered by diabetes specialist nurses. Data on recruitment, randomisation, and retention, and secondary outcomes such as clinical endpoints, emotional distress, adherence, and self-management skills measures were obtained at baseline and at 12 weeks follow-up. A qualitative evaluation using interviews was conducted at the end of the trial. Results: Of the 44 recruited at baseline, 42 patients were evaluated at follow-up. One patient died, and one discontinued the study due to deteriorating health. Recruitment, retention, and acceptability rates of C-DIRECT were generally satisfactory HbA1c levels decreased in both groups, but C-DIRECT had more participants with HbA1c < 8% at follow up compared to usual care. Significant improvements in role limitations due to physical health were noted for C-DIRECT whereas levels remained stable in usual care. No statistically significant differences between groups were observed for other clinical markers and other patient-reported outcomes. There were no adverse effects. Conclusions: The trial demonstrated satisfactory feasibility. A brief intervention delivered on bedside as part of routine dialysis care showed some benefits in glycaemic control and on QOL domain compared with usual care, although no effect was observed in other secondary outcomes. Further research is needed to design and assess interventions to promote diabetes self-management in socially vulnerable patients

Intra-cluster correlation coefficients in adults with diabetes in primary care practices: the Vermont Diabetes Information System field survey

BACKGROUND: Proper estimation of sample size requirements for cluster-based studies requires estimates of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) for the variables of interest. METHODS: We calculated the ICC for 112 variables measured as part of the Vermont Diabetes Information System, a cluster-randomized study of adults with diabetes from 73 primary care practices (the clusters) in Vermont and surrounding areas. RESULTS: ICCs varied widely around a median value of 0.0185 (Inter-quartile range: 0.006, 0.037). Some characteristics (such as the proportion having a recent creatinine measurement) were highly associated with the practice (ICC = 0.288), while others (prevalence of some comorbidities and complications and certain aspects of quality of life) varied much more across patients with only small correlation within practices (ICC<0.001). CONCLUSION: The ICC values reported here may be useful in designing future studies that use clustered sampling from primary care practices