Body mass index and health care utilization in diabetic and nondiabetic individuals.

BackgroundAlthough controversial, most studies examining the relationship of body mass index (BMI) with mortality in diabetes suggest a paradox: the lowest risk category is above normal weight, versus normal weight in nondiabetic persons. One proposed explanation is greater morbidity of diabetes in normal weight persons. If this were so, it would suggest a health care utilization paradox in diabetes, paralleling the mortality paradox, yet no studies have examined this issue.ObjectiveTo compare the relationship of BMI with health care utilization in diabetic versus nondiabetic persons.DesignPopulation-based cross-sectional study.SubjectsAdults in the 2000-2011 Medical Expenditures Panel Surveys (N=120,389).MeasuresTotal health care expenditures, hospital utilization (≥1 admission), and emergency department utilization (≥1 visit). BMI (kg/m) categories were: <20 (underweight); 20 to <25 (normal); 25 to <30 (overweight); 30 to <35 (obese); and ≥35 (severely obese). Adjustors were age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, health insurance, education, smoking, co-morbidity, urbanicity, region, and year.ResultsAmong diabetic persons, adjusted mean total health care expenditures were significantly lower in obese versus normal weight persons ($1314, 95$513-$2115; P=0.001). By contrast, among nondiabetic persons, total expenditures were nonsignificantly higher in obese versus normal weight persons (-$229, 95% CI, -$460 to$2; P=0.052). Findings for hospital and emergency department utilization exhibited similar patterns.ConclusionsNormal weight diabetic persons used substantially more health care than their overweight and obese counterparts, a difference not observed in nondiabetic persons. These differences support the plausibility of a BMI mortality paradox related to greater morbidity of diabetes in normal weight than in heavier persons

Training Residents to Employ Self-efficacy-enhancing Interviewing Techniques: Randomized Controlled Trial of a Standardized Patient Intervention

Current interventions to enhance patient self-efficacy, a key mediator of health behavior, have limited primary care application. To explore the effectiveness of an office-based intervention for training resident physicians to use self-efficacy-enhancing interviewing techniques (SEE IT). Randomized controlled trial. Family medicine and internal medicine resident physicians (N = 64) at an academic medical center. Resident use of SEE IT (a count of ten possible behaviors) was coded from audio recordings of the physician-patient portion of two standardized patient (SP) instructor training visits and two unannounced post-training SP visits, all involving common physical and mental health conditions and behavior change issues. One post-training SP visit involved health conditions similar to those experienced in training, while the other involved new conditions. Experimental group residents demonstrated significantly greater use of SEE IT than controls, starting after the first training visit and sustained through the final post-training visit. The mean effect of the intervention was significant [adjusted incidence rate ratio for increased use of SEE IT = 1.94 (95% confidence interval = 1.34, 2.79; p < 0.001)]. There were no significant effects of resident gender, race/ethnicity, specialty, training level, or SP health conditions. SP instructors can teach resident physicians to apply SEE IT during SP office visits, and the effects extend to health conditions beyond those used for training. Future studies should explore the effects of the intervention on practicing physicians, physician use of SEE IT during actual patient visits, and its influence on patient health behaviors and outcomes

Telemonitoring for Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: A Systematic Review

Background Telemonitoring, the use of communication technology to remotely monitor health status, is an appealing strategy for improving disease management. Methods and Results We searched Medline databases, bibliographies, and spoke with experts to review the evidence on telemonitoring in heart failure patients. Interventions included: telephone-based symptom monitoring (n = 5), automated monitoring of signs and symptoms (n = 1), and automated physiologic monitoring (n = 1). Two studies directly compared effectiveness of 2 or more forms of telemonitoring. Study quality and intervention type varied considerably. Six studies suggested reduction in all-cause and heart failure hospitalizations (14% to 55% and 29% to 43%, respectively) or mortality (40% to 56%) with telemonitoring. Of the 3 negative studies, 2 enrolled low-risk patients and patients with access to high quality care, whereas 1 enrolled a very high-risk Hispanic population. Studies comparing forms of telemonitoring demonstrated similar effectiveness. However, intervention costs were higher with more complex programs ($8383 per patient per year) versus less complex programs ($1695 per patient per year). Conclusion The evidence base for telemonitoring in heart failure is currently quite limited. Based on the available data, telemonitoring may be an effective strategy for disease management in high-risk heart failure patients