Physician support for diabetes patients and clinical outcomes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Physician practical support (e.g. setting goals, pro-active follow-up) and communicative support (e.g., empathic listening, eliciting preferences) have been hypothesized to influence diabetes outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a prospective observational study, patients rated physician communicative and practical support using a modified Health Care Climate Questionnaire. We assessed whether physicians' characteristic level of practical and communicative support (mean across patients) and each patients' deviation from their physician's mean level of support was associated with glycemic control outcomes. Glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were measured at baseline and at follow-up, about 2 years after baseline.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We analysed 3897 patients with diabetes treated in nine primary care clinics by 106 physicians in an integrated health plan in Western Washington, USA. Physicians' average level of practical support (based on patient ratings of their provider) was associated with significantly lower HbA1c at follow-up, controlling for baseline HbA1c (<it>p </it>= .0401). The percentage of patients with "optimal" and "poor" glycemic control differed significantly across different levels of practical support at follow (<it>p </it>= .022 and <it>p </it>= .028). Communicative support was not associated with differences in HbA1c at follow-up.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This observational study suggests that, in community practice settings, physician differences in practical support may influence glycemic control outcomes among patients with diabetes.</p

Peer support to improve diabetes care: an implementation evaluation of the Australasian Peers for Progress Diabetes Program

Background: Several studies have now demonstrated the benefits of peer support in promoting diabetes control. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled trial of a group-based, peer support program to improve diabetes self-management and thereby, diabetes control in people with Type 2 Diabetes in Victoria, Australia. Methods: The intervention program was designed to address four key peer support functions i.e. 1) assistance in daily management, 2) social and emotional support, 3) regular linkage to clinical care, and 4) ongoing and sustained support to assist with the lifelong needs of diabetes self-care management. The intervention participants attended monthly group meetings facilitated by a trained peer leader for 12 months. Data was collected on the intervention's reach, participation, implementation fidelity, groups' effectiveness and participants' perceived support and satisfaction with the intervention. The RE-AIM and PIPE frameworks were used to guide this evaluation. Results: The trial reached a high proportion (79%) of its target population through mailed invitations. Out of a total of 441 eligible individuals, 273 (61.9%) were willing to participate. The intervention fidelity was high (92.7%). The proportion of successful participants who demonstrated a reduction in 5 years cardiovascular disease risk score was 65.1 and 44.8% in the intervention and control arm respectively. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the intervention participants stated that the program helped them manage their diabetes on a day to day basis. Overall, attending monthly group meetings provided 'a lot of support' to 57% and 'moderate' support to 34% of the participants. Conclusion: Peer support programs are feasible, acceptable and can be used to supplement treatment for patients motivated to improve behaviours related to diabetes. However, program planners need to focus on the participation component in designing future programs. The use of two evaluation frameworks allowed a comprehensive evaluation of the trial from the provider-, participant- and public health perspective. The learnings gained from this evaluation will guide and improve future implementation by improving program feasibility for adoption and acceptability among participants, and will ultimately increase the likelihood of program effectiveness for the participants. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12609000469213. Registered 16 June 2009.</p

Peer Coaching to Improve Diabetes Self-Management: Which Patients Benefit Most?

BACKGROUND: Peer health coaching is an effective method of enhancing self-management support in patients with diabetes. It is unclear whether peer health coaching is equally beneficial to all patients with poor glycemic control, or is most effective for subgroups of patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the effect of peer health coaching on hemoglobin A1c (A1c) is modified by characteristics that are known to be associated with diabetes control. DESIGN: Sub-group analyses of randomized control trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and ninety nine patients with diabetes receiving care in public health clinics who participated in a randomized controlled trial of peer health coaches. MAIN MEASURES: We examined whether the association between study group and change in A1c was modified by differences in patients’ demographic, behavioral or psychosocial characteristics. Analyses were adjusted for co-variables associated with change in A1c. KEY RESULTS: The effect of coaching on patient A1c was modified by patients’ level of self-management and degree of medication adherence as baseline (p = .02, and p = .03 respectively in adjusted models). For participants with “low” self-management (one standard deviation below the mean score), the usual care group experienced a slight increase in A1c (0.3 %), while the health coaching group experienced a decrease (−0.9 %). For participants with “high” self-management (one standard deviation above the mean score), both groups experienced a similar decrease in A1c (usual care group: -1.0 %; health coaching group: −1.1 %). Participants with “low” medication adherence in the usual care group experienced an increase in A1c (0.5 %), while the health coaching group experienced a decrease (−0.8 %). Participants with “high” medication adherence experienced similar decreases (usual care group: −1.1 %; health coaching group: −1.3 %). CONCLUSION: Peer health coaching had a larger effect on lowering A1c in patients with low levels of medication adherence and self-management support than in patients with higher levels. Peer health coaching interventions may be most effective if targeted to high-risk patients with diabetes with poor glycemic control and with poor self-management and medication adherence