6 research outputs found

    The availability, functionality, and quality of mobile applications supporting medication self-management

    Get PDF
    To systematically review mobile applications currently available to patients to support outpatient medication self-management

    Clinic-Based Versus Outsourced Implementation of a Diabetes Health Literacy Intervention

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: We compared two implementation approaches for a health literacy diabetes intervention designed for community health centers. METHODS: A quasi-experimental, clinic-randomized evaluation was conducted at six community health centers from rural, suburban, and urban locations in Missouri between August 2008 and January 2010. In all, 486 adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participated. Clinics were set up to implement either: 1) a clinic-based approach that involved practice re-design to routinely provide brief diabetes education and counseling services, set action-plans, and perform follow-up without additional financial resources [CARVE-IN]; or 2) an outsourced approach where clinics referred patients to a telephone-based diabetes educator for the same services [CARVE-OUT]. The fidelity of each intervention was determined by the number of contacts with patients, self-report of services received, and patient satisfaction. Intervention effectiveness was investigated by assessing patient knowledge, self-efficacy, health behaviors, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Carve-out patients received on average 4.3 contacts (SD = 2.2) from the telephone-based diabetes educator versus 1.7 contacts (SD = 2.0) from the clinic nurse in the carve-in arm (p < 0.001). They were also more likely to recall setting action plans and rated the process more positively than carve-in patients (p < 0.001). Few differences in diabetes knowledge, self-efficacy, or health behaviors were found between the two approaches. However, clinical outcomes did vary in multivariable analyses; carve-out patients had a lower HbA1c (β = -0.31, 95 % CI -0.56 to -0.06, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (β = -3.65, 95 % CI -6.39 to -0.90, p = 0.01), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (β = -7.96, 95 % CI -10.08 to -5.83, p < 0.001) at 6 months. CONCLUSION: An outsourced diabetes education and counseling approach for community health centers appears more feasible than clinic-based models. Patients receiving the carve-out strategy also demonstrated better clinical outcomes compared to those receiving the carve-in approach. Study limitations and unclear causal mechanisms explaining change in patient behavior suggest that further research is needed

    The availability, functionality, and quality of mobile applications supporting medication self-management

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE: To systematically review mobile applications currently available to patients to support outpatient medication self-management. METHODS: Three online stores were searched in March 2013 using nine distinct search terms. Applications were selected if they supported general outpatient medication self-management for adults; they were excluded if they focused on only one medication or condition, provided only a medication list or reference, only ordered refills, were written in a non-English language, or were for local pharmacy/hospital patients only. A multi-step review process was utilized by two independent reviewers to identify eligible applications. A standardized form was used to abstract data. User reviews were compiled from a subsample of applications and qualitatively coded to identify common criticisms. RESULTS: 14 893 applications were initially identified. After the multi-step review process, 424 applications were deemed eligible for inclusion by reviewers (κ=0.85). On average, applications were rated 2.8 stars (out of 5) from 107 reviews. Almost all provided medication reminders (91.0%), half enabled patients to create a medication history or log (51.5%), and 22% could email the log to a third party. Few helped patients organize their regimen (6.2%), check for drug interactions (2.8%), or identify pills (4.0%). User reviews (N=1091) from the subsample of 26 applications revealed common criticisms, including technical malfunctions, poor compatibility with certain medications, and absence of desired features. CONCLUSIONS: Hundreds of applications exist in the marketplace to support medication self-management. However, their quality, content, and functionality are highly variable. Research is needed to determine optimal capabilities, evaluate utility, and determine clinical benefit

    Clinic-Based Versus Outsourced Implementation of a Diabetes Health Literacy Intervention

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: We compared two implementation approaches for a health literacy diabetes intervention designed for community health centers. METHODS: A quasi-experimental, clinic-randomized evaluation was conducted at six community health centers from rural, suburban, and urban locations in Missouri between August 2008 and January 2010. In all, 486 adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participated. Clinics were set up to implement either: 1) a clinic-based approach that involved practice re-design to routinely provide brief diabetes education and counseling services, set action-plans, and perform follow-up without additional financial resources [CARVE-IN]; or 2) an outsourced approach where clinics referred patients to a telephone-based diabetes educator for the same services [CARVE-OUT]. The fidelity of each intervention was determined by the number of contacts with patients, self-report of services received, and patient satisfaction. Intervention effectiveness was investigated by assessing patient knowledge, self-efficacy, health behaviors, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Carve-out patients received on average 4.3 contacts (SD = 2.2) from the telephone-based diabetes educator versus 1.7 contacts (SD = 2.0) from the clinic nurse in the carve-in arm (p < 0.001). They were also more likely to recall setting action plans and rated the process more positively than carve-in patients (p < 0.001). Few differences in diabetes knowledge, self-efficacy, or health behaviors were found between the two approaches. However, clinical outcomes did vary in multivariable analyses; carve-out patients had a lower HbA1c (β = −0.31, 95 % CI −0.56 to −0.06, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (β = −3.65, 95 % CI −6.39 to −0.90, p = 0.01), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (β = −7.96, 95 % CI −10.08 to −5.83, p < 0.001) at 6 months. CONCLUSION: An outsourced diabetes education and counseling approach for community health centers appears more feasible than clinic-based models. Patients receiving the carve-out strategy also demonstrated better clinical outcomes compared to those receiving the carve-in approach. Study limitations and unclear causal mechanisms explaining change in patient behavior suggest that further research is needed

    Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

    No full text
    BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction
    corecore