'Join us on our journey': Exploring the experiences of children and young people with type 1 diabetes and their parents

This paper focuses on children and young people with type 1 diabetes and on their parents, and their experiences of diabetes care provision. Nine acute hospitals in the Yorkshire and the Humber region, UK, were recruited to participate in a qualitative research study. Children and young people with type 1 diabetes, aged 6–25, and their parents (approximately 250 participants), took part in talking groups to find out about their experiences of diabetes care provision. Findings show that there are key areas for improvement in the future diabetes care provision for children and young people, including communication and support, schools, structured education and transition. These have important implications for practice and service redesign. This study is thought to be the first of its kind to consult with children, young people and parents to find out about their experiences of type 1 diabetes care provision. The research findings add to the current evidence base by highlighting the disparities in care, the urgent need for change in the way services are delivered and the involvement of service users in this process

An intervention to promote patient participation and self-management in long term conditions: development and feasibility testing

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is worldwide interest in managing the global burden of long-term conditions. Current health policy places emphasis on self-management and supporting patient participation as ways of improving patient outcomes and reducing costs. However, achieving genuine participation is difficult. This paper describes the development of an intervention designed to promote participation in the consultation and facilitate self-management in long-term conditions. In line with current guidance on the development of complex interventions, our aim was to develop and refine the initial intervention using qualitative methods, prior to more formal evaluation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We based the intervention on published evidence on effective ways of improving participation. The intervention was developed, piloted and evaluated using a range of qualitative methods. Firstly, focus groups with stakeholders (5 patients and 3 clinicians) were held to introduce the prototype and elucidate how it could be improved. Then individual 'think aloud' and qualitative interviews (n = 10) were used to explore how patients responded to and understood the form and provide further refinement.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The literature highlighted that effective methods of increasing participation include the use of <it>patient reported outcome measures </it>and <it>values clarification exercises</it>. The intervention (called PRISMS) integrated these processes, using a structured form which required patients to identify problems, rate their magnitude and identify their priority. PRISMS was well received by patients and professionals. In the individual qualitative interviews the main themes that emerged from the data related to (a) the content of the PRISMS (b) the process of completing PRISMS and how it could be operationalised in practice and (c) the outcomes of completing PRISMS for the patient. A number of different functions of PRISMS were identified by patients including its use as an aide-memoire, to provide a focus to consultations, to give permission to discuss certain issues, and to provide greater tailoring for the patient.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There was evidence that patients found the PRISMS form acceptable and potentially useful. The challenge encountered by patients in completing PRISMS may encourage exploration of these issues within the consultation, complementing the more 'task focussed' aspects of consultations resulting from introduction of clinical guidelines and financial incentives. Further research is required to provide a rigorous assessment of the ability of tools like PRISMS to achieve genuine change in the process and outcome of consultations.</p

The Prevalence of Visual Impairment in People with Dementia (the PrOVIDe study): a cross-sectional study of people aged 60–89 years with dementia and qualitative exploration of individual, carer and professional perspectives

Background: The prevalence of visual impairment (VI) and dementia increases with age and these conditions may coexist, but few UK data exist on VI among people with dementia. Objectives: To measure the prevalence of eye conditions causing VI in people with dementia and to identify/describe reasons for underdetection or inappropriate management. Design: Stage 1 – cross-sectional prevalence study. Stage 2 – qualitative research exploring participant, carer and professional perspectives of eye care. Setting: Stage 1 – 20 NHS sites in six English regions. Stage 2 – six English regions. Participants: Stage 1 – 708 participants with dementia (aged 60–89 years): 389 lived in the community (group 1) and 319 lived in care homes (group 2). Stage 2 – 119 participants. Interventions: Stage 1 gathered eye examination data following domiciliary sight tests complying with General Ophthalmic Services requirements and professional guidelines. Cognitive impairment was assessed using the Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (sMMSE) test, and functional ability and behavior were assessed using the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale and Cambridge Behavioural Inventory – Revised. Stage 2 involved individual interviews (36 people with dementia and 11 care workers); and separate focus groups (34 optometrists; 38 family and professional carers). Main outcome measures.: VI defined by visual acuity (VA) worse than 6/12 or worse than 6/18 measured before and after refraction. Results: Stage 1 – when participants wore their current spectacles, VI prevalence was 32.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 28.7% to 36.5%] and 16.3% (95% CI 13.5% to 19.6%) for commonly used criteria for VI of VA worse than 6/12 and 6/18, respectively. Of those with VI, 44% (VA 80% of participants. There was no evidence that the management of VI in people with dementia differed from that in older people in general. Exploratory analysis suggested significant deficits in some vision-related aspects of function and behaviour in participants with VI. Stage 2 key messages – carers and care workers underestimated how much can be achieved in an eye examination. People with dementia and carers were unaware of domiciliary sight test availability. Improved communication is needed between optometrists and carers; optometrists should be informed of the person’s dementia. Tailoring eye examinations to individual needs includes allowing extra time. Optometrists wanted training and guidance about dementia. Correcting VI may improve the quality of life of people with dementia but should be weighed against the risks and burdens of undergoing examinations and cataract surgery on an individual basis. Limitations: Sampling bias is possible owing to quota-sampling and response bias. Conclusions: The prevalence of VI is disproportionately higher in people with dementia living in care homes. Almost 50% of presenting VI is correctable with spectacles, and more with cataract surgery. Areas for future research are the development of an eye-care pathway for people with dementia; assessment of the benefits of early cataract surgery; and research into the feasibility of specialist optometrists for older people

A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of a Diabetes REcall And Management system: the DREAM trial

BACKGROUND: Following the introduction of a computerised diabetes register in part of the northeast of England, care initially improved but then plateaued. We therefore enhanced the existing diabetes register to address these problems. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of an area wide 'extended,' computerised diabetes register incorporating a full structured recall and management system, including individualised patient management prompts to primary care clinicians based on locally-adapted, evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: The study design was a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial, with the general practice as the unit of randomisation. Set in 58 general practices in three Primary Care Trusts in the northeast of England, the study outcomes were the clinical process and outcome variables held on the diabetes register, patient-reported outcomes, and service and patient costs. The effect of the intervention was estimated using generalised linear models with an appropriate error structure. To allow for the clustering of patients within practices, population averaged models were estimated using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Patients in intervention practices were more likely to have at least one diabetes appointment recorded (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02, 3.91), to have a recording of a foot check (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09, 3.21), have a recording of receiving dietary advice (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.22, 6.29), and have a recording of blood pressure (BP) (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.06, 4.36). There was no difference in mean HbA1c or BP levels, but the mean cholesterol level in patients from intervention practices was significantly lower (-0.15 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.25, -0.06). There were no differences in patient-reported outcomes or in patient-reported use of drugs, or uptake of health services. The average cost per patient was not significantly different between the intervention and control groups. Costs incurred in administering the system at the register and in general practice were in addition to these. CONCLUSION: This study has shown benefits from an area-wide, computerised diabetes register incorporating a full structured recall and individualised patient management system. However, these benefits were achieved at a cost. In future, these costs may fall as electronic data exchange becomes a reliable reality. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register, ISRCTN32042030

Screening for glucose intolerance and development of a lifestyle education programme for prevention of Type 2 diabetes in a population with intellectual disabilities

Background: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is believed to be higher among people with intellectual disability (ID) than in the general population. However, research on prevalence and prevention in this population is limited. Objectives: The objectives of this programme of work were to establish a programme of research that would significantly enhance the knowledge and understanding of impaired glucose regulation (IGR) and T2DM in people with ID; to test strategies for the early identification of IGR and T2DM in people with ID; and to develop a lifestyle education programme and educator training protocol to promote behaviour change in a population with ID and IGR (or at a high risk of T2DM/CVD). Setting: Leicestershire, UK. Participants: Adults with ID were recruited from community settings, including residential homes and family homes. Adults with mild to moderate ID who had an elevated body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 25 kg/m2 and/or IGR were invited to take part in the education programme. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the screening programme was the prevalence of screen-detected T2DM and IGR. The uptake, feasibility and acceptability of the intervention were assessed. Data sources: Participants were recruited from general practices, specialist ID services and clinics, and through direct contact. Results: A total of 930 people with ID were recruited to the screening programme: 58% were male, 80% were white and 68% were overweight or obese. The mean age of participants was 43.3 years (standard deviation 14.2 years). Bloods were obtained for 675 participants (73%). The prevalence of previously undiagnosed T2DM was 1.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5% to 2%] and of IGR was 5% (95% CI 4% to 7%). Abnormal IGR was more common in those of non-white ethnicity; those with a first-degree family history of diabetes; those with increasing weight, waist circumference, BMI, diastolic blood pressure or triglycerides; and those with lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We developed a lifestyle educational programme for people with ID, informed by findings from qualitative stakeholder interviews (health-care professionals, n = 14; people with ID, n = 7) and evidence reviews. Subsequently, 11 people with ID (and carers) participated in pilot education sessions (two groups) and five people attended education for the feasibility stage (one group). We found that it was feasible to collect primary outcome measures on physical activity and sedentary behaviour using wrist-worn accelerometers. We found that the programme was relatively costly, meaning that large changes in activity or diet (or a reduction in programme costs) would be necessary for the programme to be cost-effective. We also developed a quality development process for assessing intervention fidelity. Limitations: We were able to screen only around 30% of the population and involved only a small number in the piloting and feasibility work. Conclusions: The results from this programme of work have significantly enhanced the existing knowledge and understanding of T2DM and IGR in people with ID. We have developed a lifestyle education programme and educator training protocol to promote behaviour change in this population. Future work: Further work is needed to evaluate the STOP Diabetes intervention to identify cost-effective strategies for its implementation

A web-based self-management programme for people with type 2 diabetes : the HeLP-Diabetes research programme including RCT

Background: In the UK, 6% of the UK population have diabetes mellitus, 90% of whom have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Diabetes mellitus accounts for 10% of NHS expenditure (£14B annually). Good self-management may improve health outcomes. NHS policy is to refer all people with T2DM to structured education, on diagnosis, to improve their self-management skills, with annual reinforcement thereafter. However, uptake remains low (5.6% in 2014–15). Almost all structured education is group based, which may not suit people who work, who have family or other caring commitments or who simply do not like group-based formats. Moreover, patient needs vary with time and a single education session at diagnosis is unlikely to meet these evolving needs. A web-based programme may increase uptake. / Objectives: Our aim was to develop, evaluate and implement a web-based self-management programme for people with T2DM at any stage of their illness journey, with the goal of improving access to, and uptake of, self-management support, thereby improving health outcomes in a cost-effective manner. Specific objectives were to (1) develop an evidence-based theoretically informed programme that was acceptable to patients and health-care professionals (HCPs) and that could be readily implemented within routine NHS care, (2) determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the programme compared with usual care and (3) determine how best to integrate the programme into routine care. / Design: There were five linked work packages (WPs). WP A determined patient requirements and WP B determined HCP requirements for the self-management programme. WP C developed and user-tested the Healthy Living for People with type 2 Diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes) programme. WP D was an individually randomised controlled trial in primary care with a health economic analysis. WP E used a mixed-methods and case-study design to study the potential for implementing the HeLP-Diabetes programme within routine NHS practice. / Setting: English primary care. / Participants: People with T2DM (WPs A, D and E) or HCPs caring for people with T2DM (WPs B, C and E). / Intervention: The HeLP-Diabetes programme; an evidence-based theoretically informed web-based self-management programme for people with T2DM at all stages of their illness journey, developed using participatory design principles. / Main outcome measures: WPs A and B provided data on user ‘wants and needs’, including factors that would improve the uptake and accessibility of the HeLP-Diabetes programme. The outcome for WP C was the HeLP-Diabetes programme itself. The trial (WP D) had two outcomes measures: glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level and diabetes mellitus-related distress, as measured with the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale. The implementation outcomes (WP E) were the adoption and uptake at clinical commissioning group, general practice and patient levels and the identification of key barriers and facilitators. / Results: Data from WPs A and B supported our holistic approach and addressed all areas of self-management (medical, emotional and role management). HCPs voiced concerns about linkage with the electronic medical records (EMRs) and supporting patients to use the programme. The HeLP-Diabetes programme was developed and user-tested in WP C. The trial (WP D) recruited to target (n = 374), achieved follow-up rates of over 80% and the intention-to-treat analysis showed that there was an additional improvement in HbA1c levels at 12 months in the intervention group [mean difference –0.24%, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.44% to –0.049%]. There was no difference in overall PAID score levels (mean difference –1.5 points, 95% CI –3.9 to 0.9 points). The within-trial health economic analysis found that incremental costs were lower in the intervention group than in the control group (mean difference –£111, 95% CI –£384 to £136) and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher (mean difference 0.02 QALYs, 95% CI 0.000 to 0.044 QALYs), meaning that the HeLP-Diabetes programme group dominated the control group. In WP E, we found that the HeLP-Diabetes programme could be successfully implemented in primary care. General practices that supported people in registering for the HeLP-Diabetes programme had better uptake and registered patients from a wider demographic than those relying on patient self-registration. Some HCPs were reluctant to do this, as they did not see it as part of their professional role. / Limitations: We were unable to link the HeLP-Diabetes programme with the EMRs or to determine the effects of the HeLP-Diabetes programme on users in the implementation study. / Conclusions: The HeLP-Diabetes programme is an effective self-management support programme that is implementable in primary care. / Future work: The HeLP-Diabetes research team will explore the following in future work: research to determine how to improve patient uptake of self-management support; develop and evaluate a structured digital educational pathway for newly diagnosed people; develop and evaluate a digital T2DM prevention programme; and the national implementation of the HeLP-Diabetes programme. / Trial registration: Research Ethics Committee reference number 10/H0722/86 for WPs A–C; Research Ethics Committee reference number 12/LO/1571 and UK Clinical Research Network/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio 13563 for WP D; and Research Ethics Committee 13/EM/0033 for WP E. In addition, for WP D, the study was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register as reference number ISRCTN02123133. / Funding details: This project was funded by the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 6, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information