Motivation and attitudes toward changing health (MATCH): A new patient-reported measure to inform clinical conversations.

ObjectiveTo identify and assess patient motivation to initiate or maintain behavior changes.MethodsAttitudinal statements were developed from structured patient interviews and translated into 18 survey items. Items were analyzed with exploratory factor analysis (EFA).ResultsAn EFA with 340 type 2 diabetes patients identified three areas of patient attitudes toward changing health behaviors: (1) willingness to make changes (3 items; α = 0.69), (2) perceived ability to make or maintain changes (3 items; α = 0.74), and (3) and feeling changes are worthwhile (3 items; α = 0.61). Greater perceived ability and feelings of worthwhileness were associated with positive psychosocial and behavioral management indicators. All three areas were associated with confidence and attitudes toward making a specific behavioral change (e.g., improve diet).ConclusionsMATCH is an internally consistent and valid 9-item scale that provides a profile of factors influencing motivation that can be used in clinical and research settings

Delay Of Insulin Addition To Oral Combination Therapy Despite Inadequate Glycemic Control: Delay of Insulin Therapy

BACKGROUND: Patients and providers may be reluctant to escalate to insulin therapy despite inadequate glycemic control. OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of patients attaining and maintaining glycemic targets after initiating sulfonylurea and metformin oral combination therapy (SU/MET); to assess insulin initiation among patients failing SU/MET; and to estimate the glycemic burden incurred, stratified by whether HbA(1c) goal was attained and maintained. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational cohort study. SUBJECTS: Type 2 diabetes patients, 3,891, who newly initiated SU/MET between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2000. MEASUREMENTS: Subjects were followed until insulin was added, health plan disenrolment, or until 31 December 2005. We calculated the number of months subjects continued SU/MET therapy alone, in total, and during periods of inadequate glycemic control; the A1C reached during those time periods; and total glycemic burden, defined as the estimated cumulative monthly difference between measured A1C and 8%. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 54.6 ± 28.6 months, 41.9% of the subjects added insulin, and 11.8% received maximal doses of both oral agents. Over half of SU/MET patients attained but failed to maintain A1C of 8%, yet continued SU/MET therapy for an average of nearly 3 years, sustaining glycemic burden equivalent to nearly 32 months of A1C levels of 9%. Another 18% of patients never attained the 8% goal with SU/MET, yet continued that therapy for an average of 30 months, reaching mean A1C levels of 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite inadequate glycemic control, a minority of patients added insulin or maximized oral agent doses, thus, incurring substantial glycemic burden on SU/MET. Additional studies are needed to examine the benefits of rapid titration to maximum doses and earlier initiation of insulin therapy

Flash Glucose-Sensing Technology as a Replacement for Blood Glucose Monitoring for the Management of Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: a Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction Glycemic control in participants with insulin-treated diabetes remains challenging. We assessed safety and efficacy of new flash glucose-sensing technology to replace self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Methods This open-label randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02082184) enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy from 26 European diabetes centers. Following 2 weeks of blinded sensor wear, 2:1 (intervention/control) randomization (centrally, using biased-coin minimization dependant on study center and insulin administration) was to control (SMBG) or intervention (glucose-sensing technology). Participants and investigators were not masked to group allocation. Primary outcome was difference in HbA1c at 6 months in the full analysis set. Prespecified secondary outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, effect of age, and patient satisfaction. Results Participants (n = 224) were randomized (149 intervention, 75 controls). At 6 months, there was no difference in the change in HbA1c between intervention and controls: −3.1 ± 0.75 mmol/mol, [−0.29 ± 0.07% (mean ± SE)] and −3.4 ± 1.04 mmol/mol (−0.31 ± 0.09%) respectively; p = 0.8222. A difference was detected in participants aged <65 years [−5.7 ± 0.96 mmol/mol (−0.53 ± 0.09%) and −2.2 ± 1.31 mmol/mol (−0.20 ± 0.12%), respectively; p = 0.0301]. Time in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) reduced by 0.47 ± 0.13 h/day [mean ± SE (p = 0.0006)], and <3.1 mmol/L (55 mg/dL) reduced by 0.22 ± 0.07 h/day (p = 0.0014) for intervention participants compared with controls; reductions of 43% and 53%, respectively. SMBG frequency, similar at baseline, decreased in intervention participants from 3.8 ± 1.4 tests/day (mean ± SD) to 0.3 ± 0.7, remaining unchanged in controls. Treatment satisfaction was higher in intervention compared with controls (DTSQ 13.1 ± 0.50 (mean ± SE) and 9.0 ± 0.72, respectively; p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemic events were reported related to sensor data use. Forty-two serious events [16 (10.7%) intervention participants, 12 (16.0%) controls] were not device-related. Six intervention participants reported nine adverse events for sensor-wear reactions (two severe, six moderate, one mild). Conclusion Flash glucose-sensing technology use in type 2 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy results in no difference in HbA1c change and reduced hypoglycemia, thus offering a safe, effective replacement for SMBG

Telecare motivational interviewing for diabetes patient education and support : a randomised controlled trial based in primary care comparing nurse and peer supporter delivery

Background: There is increasing interest in developing peer-led and 'expert patient'-type interventions, particularly to meet the support and informational needs of those with long term conditions, leading to improved clinical outcomes, and pressure relief on mainstream health services. There is also increasing interest in telephone support, due to its greater accessibility and potential availability than face to face provided support. The evidence base for peer telephone interventions is relatively weak, although such services are widely available as support lines provided by user groups and other charitable services. Methods/Design: In a 3-arm RCT, participants are allocated to either an intervention group with Telecare service provided by a Diabetes Specialist Nurse (DSN), an intervention group with service provided by a peer supporter (also living with diabetes), or a control group receiving routine care only. All supporters underwent a 2-day training in motivational interviewing, empowerment and active listening skills to provide telephone support over a period of up to 6 months to adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes who had been recommended a change in diabetes management (i.e. medication and/or lifestyle changes) by their general practitioner (GP). The primary outcome is self-efficacy; secondary outcomes include HbA1c, total and HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, body mass index, and adherence to treatment. 375 participants (125 in each arm) were sought from GP practices across West Midlands, to detect a difference in self-efficacy scores with an effect size of 0.35, 80% power, and 5% significance level. Adults living with type 2 diabetes, with an HbA1c > 8% and not taking insulin were initially eligible. A protocol change 10 months into the recruitment resulted in a change of eligibility by reducing HbA1c to > 7.4%. Several qualitative studies are being conducted alongside the main RCT to describe patient, telecare supporter and practice nurse experience of the trial. Discussion and implications of the research: With its focus on self-management and telephone peer support, the intervention being trialled has the potential to support improved self-efficacy and patient experience, improved clinical outcomes and a reduction in diabetes-related complications

Psychometric evaluation of the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) survey in Southern, rural African American women with Type 2 diabetes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) survey is a measure of diabetes-related stress for which reported use has been in largely Caucasian populations. Our purpose was to assess the psychometric properties of the PAID in Southern rural African American women with Type 2 diabetes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A convenience sample of African American women (N = 131) ranging from 21–50 years of age and diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes were recruited for a survey study from two rural Southern community health centers. Participants completed the PAID, Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D), and the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Scale (SDSCA). Factor analysis, Cronbach's coefficient alpha, and construct validation facilitated psychometric evaluation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A principle component factor analysis of the PAID yielded two factors, 1) a lack of confidence subscale, and 2) a negative emotional consequences subscale. The Lack of Confidence and Negative Emotional Consequences subscales, but not the overall PAID scale, were associated with glycemic control and body mass index, respectively. Relationships with measures of depression and diabetes self-care supported construct validity of both subscales. Both subscales had acceptable (alpha = 0.85 and 0.94) internal consistency measures.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A psychometrically sound two-factor solution to the PAID survey is identified in Southern, rural African American women with Type 2 diabetes. Lack of confidence in and negative emotional consequences of diabetes self-care implementation provide a better understanding of determinants of glycemic control and weight than an aggregate of the two scales.</p

The Diabetes Manual trial protocol – a cluster randomized controlled trial of a self-management intervention for type 2 diabetes [ISRCTN06315411]

Background The Diabetes Manual is a type 2 diabetes self-management programme based upon the clinically effective 'Heart Manual'. The 12 week programme is a complex intervention theoretically underpinned by self-efficacy theory. It is a one to one intervention meeting United Kingdom requirements for structured diabetes-education and is delivered within routine primary care. Methods/design In a two-group cluster randomized controlled trial, GP practices are allocated by computer minimisation to an intervention group or a six-month deferred intervention group. We aim to recruit 250 participants from 50 practices across central England. Eligibility criteria are adults able to undertake the programme with type 2 diabetes, not taking insulin, with HbA1c over 8% (first 12 months) and following an agreed protocol change over 7% (months 13 to 18). Following randomisation, intervention nurses receive two-day training and delivered the Diabetes Manual programme to participants. Deferred intervention nurses receive the training following six-month follow-up. Primary outcome is HbA1c with total and HDL cholesterol; blood pressure, body mass index; self-efficacy and quality of life as additional outcomes. Primary analysis is between-group HbA1c differences at 6 months powered to give 80% power to detect a difference in HbA1c of 0.6%. A 12 month cohort analysis will assess maintenance of effect and assess relationship between self-efficacy and outcomes, and a qualitative study is running alongside. Discussion This trial incorporates educational and psychological diabetes interventions into a single programme and assesses both clinical and psychosocial outcomes. The trial will increase our understanding of intervention transferability between conditions, those diabetes related health behaviours that are more or less susceptible to change through efficacy enhancing mechanisms and how this impacts on clinical outcomes

The value of episodic, intensive blood glucose monitoring in non-insulin treated persons with type 2 diabetes: Design of the Structured Testing Program (STeP) Study, a cluster-randomised, clinical trial [NCT00674986]

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The value and utility of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in non-insulin treated T2DM has yet to be clearly determined. Findings from studies in this population have been inconsistent, due mainly to design differences and limitations, including the prescribed frequency and timing of SMBG, role of the patient and physician in responding to SMBG results, inclusion criteria that may contribute to untoward floor effects, subject compliance, and cross-arm contamination. We have designed an SMBG intervention study that attempts to address these issues.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The Structured Testing Program (STeP) study is a 12-month, cluster-randomised, multi-centre clinical trial to evaluate whether poorly controlled (HbA1c ≥ 7.5%), non-insulin treated T2DM patients will benefit from a comprehensive, integrated physician/patient intervention using structured SMBG in US primary care practices. Thirty-four practices will be recruited and randomly assigned to an active control group (ACG) that receives enhanced usual care or to an enhanced usual care group plus structured SMBG (STG). A total of 504 patients will be enrolled; eligible patients at each site will be randomly selected using a defined protocol. Anticipated attrition of 20% will yield a sample size of at least 204 per arm, which will provide a 90% power to detect a difference of at least 0.5% in change from baseline in HbA1c values, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.5%. Differences in timing and degree of treatment intensification, cost effectiveness, and changes in patient self-management behaviours, mood, and quality of life (QOL) over time will also be assessed. Analysis of change in HbA1c and other dependent variables over time will be performed using both intent-to-treat and per protocol analyses. Trial results will be available in 2010.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The intervention and trial design builds upon previous research by emphasizing appropriate and collaborative use of SMBG by both patients and physicians. Utilization of per protocol and intent-to-treat analyses facilitates a comprehensive assessment of the intervention. Use of practice site cluster-randomisation reduces the potential for intervention contamination, and inclusion criteria (HbA1c ≥ 7.5%) reduces the possibility of floor effects. Inclusion of multiple dependent variables allows us to assess the broader impact of the intervention, including changes in patient and physician attitudes and behaviours.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials NCT00674986.</p

The combined diabetes and renal control trial (C-DIRECT) - a feasibility randomised controlled trial to evaluate outcomes in multi-morbid patients with diabetes and on dialysis using a mixed methods approach

Background: This cluster randomised controlled trial set out to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the “Combined Diabetes and Renal Control Trial” (C-DIRECT) intervention, a nurse-led intervention based on motivational interviewing and self-management in patients with coexisting end stage renal diseases and diabetes mellitus (DM ESRD). Its efficacy to improve glycaemic control, as well as psychosocial and self-care outcomes were also evaluated as secondary outcomes. Methods: An assessor-blinded, clustered randomised-controlled trial was conducted with 44 haemodialysis patients with DM ESRD and ≥ 8% glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), in dialysis centres across Singapore. Patients were randomised according to dialysis shifts. 20 patients were assigned to intervention and 24 were in usual care. The C-DIRECT intervention consisted of three weekly chair-side sessions delivered by diabetes specialist nurses. Data on recruitment, randomisation, and retention, and secondary outcomes such as clinical endpoints, emotional distress, adherence, and self-management skills measures were obtained at baseline and at 12 weeks follow-up. A qualitative evaluation using interviews was conducted at the end of the trial. Results: Of the 44 recruited at baseline, 42 patients were evaluated at follow-up. One patient died, and one discontinued the study due to deteriorating health. Recruitment, retention, and acceptability rates of C-DIRECT were generally satisfactory HbA1c levels decreased in both groups, but C-DIRECT had more participants with HbA1c < 8% at follow up compared to usual care. Significant improvements in role limitations due to physical health were noted for C-DIRECT whereas levels remained stable in usual care. No statistically significant differences between groups were observed for other clinical markers and other patient-reported outcomes. There were no adverse effects. Conclusions: The trial demonstrated satisfactory feasibility. A brief intervention delivered on bedside as part of routine dialysis care showed some benefits in glycaemic control and on QOL domain compared with usual care, although no effect was observed in other secondary outcomes. Further research is needed to design and assess interventions to promote diabetes self-management in socially vulnerable patients