Effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress on clinical outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

Objectives: This study examined the effect of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) routinely to assess and address depressive symptoms and diabetes distress among adults with type 2 diabetes. Design: A systematic review of published peer-reviewed studies. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Eligibility criteria: Studies including adults with type 2 diabetes, published in English, from the inception of the databases to 24 February 2022 inclusive; and where the intervention included completion of a PROM of depressive symptoms and/or diabetes distress, with feedback of the responses to a healthcare professional. Data extraction and synthesis: Using Covidence software, screening and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently with any disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Results: The search identified 4512 citations, of which 163 full-text citations were assessed for eligibility, and nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies involved assessment of depressive symptoms only, two studies assessed diabetes distress only, and two studies assessed both. All studies had an associated cointervention. When depressive symptoms were assessed (n=7), a statistically significant between-group difference in depressive symptoms was observed in five studies; with a clinically significant (>0.5%) between-group difference in HbA1c in two studies. When diabetes distress was assessed (n=4), one study demonstrated statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms and diabetes distress; with a clinically significant between-group difference in HbA1c observed in two studies. Conclusion: Studies are sparse in which PROMs are used to assess and address depressive symptoms or diabetes distress during routine clinical care of adults with type 2 diabetes. Further research is warranted to understand how to integrate PROMs into clinical care efficiently and determine appropriate interventions to manage identified problem areas. Prospero registration number: CRD42020200246.</p

Effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress using patient-reported outcome measures in improving outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review protocol

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes is a global health priority. People with diabetes are more likely to experience mental health problems relative to people without diabetes. Diabetes guidelines recommend assessment of depression and diabetes distress during diabetes care. This systematic review will examine the effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress using patient-reported outcome measures in improving outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes. Methods and analysis: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete, PsycInfo, The Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched using a prespecified strategy using a prespecified Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Setting and study design strategy. The date range of the search of all databases will be from inception to 3 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials, interrupted time-series studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and analytical cross-sectional studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the English language will be included. Two review authors will independently screen abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer, if required, using Covidence software. Two reviewers will undertake risk of bias assessment using checklists appropriate to study design. Data will be extracted using prespecified template. A narrative synthesis will be conducted, with a meta-analysis, if appropriate. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval is not required for this review of published studies. Presentation of results will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. Prospero registration number: CRD42020200246.</p

DataSheet_1_The impact of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose on clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.docx

BackgroundSelf-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is considered of little clinical benefit for adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, but no comprehensive review of a structured approach to SMBG has been published to date.PurposeTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of sSMBG on HbA1c, treatment modifications, behavioral and psychosocial outcomes, and; examine the moderating effects of sSMBG protocol characteristics on HbA1c.Data sourcesFour databases searched (November 2020; updated: February 2022).Study selectionInclusion criteria: non-randomized and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies; reporting effect of sSMBG on stated outcomes; among adults (≥18 years) with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Studies excluded if involving children or people with insulin-treated or other forms of diabetes.Data extraction and analysisOutcome data extracted, and risk of bias/quality assessed independently by two researchers. Meta-analysis was conducted for RCTs, and moderators explored (HbA1c only).Data synthesisFrom 2,078 abstracts, k=23 studies were included (N=5,372). Risk of bias was evident and study quality was low. Outcomes assessed included: HbA1c (k=23), treatment modification (k=16), psychosocial/behavioral outcomes (k=12). Meta-analysis revealed a significant mean difference favoring sSMBG in HbA1c (-0·29%, 95% CI: -0·46 to -0·11, k=13) and diabetes self-efficacy (0.17%, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.33, k=2). Meta-analysis revealed no significant moderating effects by protocol characteristics.LimitationsFindings limited by heterogeneity in study designs, intervention characteristics, and psychosocial assessments.ConclusionA small positive effect of sSMBG on HbA1c and diabetes self-efficacy was observed. Narrative synthesis of sSMBG intervention characteristics may guide future implementation.PROSPERO registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020208857, identifier CRD42020208857.</p

GP-OSMOTIC trial protocol: an individually randomised controlled trial to determine the effect of retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (r-CGM) on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal glycaemia can reduce type 2 diabetes (T2D) complications. Observing retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (r-CGM) patterns may prompt therapeutic changes but evidence for r-CGM use in T2D is limited. We describe the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining intermittent r-CGM use (up to 14 days every three months) in T2D in general practice (GP). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: General Practice Optimising Structured MOnitoring To achieve Improved Clinical Outcomes is a two-arm RCT asking 'does intermittent r-CGM in adults with T2D in primary care improve HbA1c?' PRIMARY OUTCOME: Absolute difference in mean HbA1c at 12 months follow-up between intervention and control arms. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (a) r-CGM per cent time in target (4-10 mmol/L) range, at baseline and 12 months; (b) diabetes-specific distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes). ELIGIBILITY: Aged 18-80 years, T2D for ≥1 year, a (past month) HbA1c>5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%) above their individualised target while prescribed at least two non-insulin hypoglycaemic therapies and/or insulin (therapy stable for the last four months). Our general glycaemic target is 53 mmol/mol (7%) (patients with a history of severe hypoglycaemia or a recorded diagnosis of hypoglycaemia unawareness will have a target of 64 mmol/mol (8%)).Our trial compares r-CGM use and usual care. The r-CGM report summarising daily glucose patterns will be reviewed by GP and patient and inform treatment decisions. Participants in both arms are provided with 1 hour education by a specialist diabetes nurse.The sample (n=150/arm) has 80% power to detect a mean HbA1c difference of 5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%) with an SD of 14.2 (1.3%) and alpha of 0.05 (allowing for 10% clinic and 20% patient attrition). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: University of Melbourne Human Ethics Sub-Committee (ID 1647151.1). Dissemination will be in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a plain-language summary for participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: >ACTRN12616001372471; Pre-results