Patient–provider perceptions of diabetes and its impact on self-management: a comparison of African-American and White patients

Aims  To compare patient–provider differences in diabetes-related perceptions between African-American and White patients and to examine its association with self-care behaviours. Methods  One hundred and thirty patient–provider pairs were recruited from the greater Detroit area. Patients and providers completed a survey assessing perceptions about diabetes-related concepts and demographic background. The Diabetes Semantic Differential Scale was used to measure diabetes-related perceptions. Patients also reported the frequency of performing self-care behaviours, including following a healthy eating plan, engaging in physical activity, blood glucose monitoring, and taking medication and/or insulin. Results  There were a greater number of patient–provider differences in diabetes-related perceptions for the African-American patients (nine of 18 concepts) compared with the White patients (four of 18 concepts). Stepwise regression analyses found patients’ semantic differential scores to be significantly associated with five self-care behaviours for African-American patients and two self-care behaviours for White patients. Providers’ semantic differential scores emerged as predictors of self-care behaviours for African-American patients, but not for White patients. Conclusions  Our findings suggest that compared with White patients, African-Americans differ in a greater number of diabetes-related perceptions than their providers. Patients’ and providers’ perceptions of diabetes care concepts have a significant impact on a greater number of self-care behaviours for African-American patients than White patients. Diabet. Med. 25, 341–348 (2008)Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72171/1/j.1464-5491.2007.02371.x.pd

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 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

A mobile telehealth intervention for adults with insulin-requiring diabetes: early results of a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The role of technology in health care delivery has grown rapidly in the last decade. The potential of mobile telehealth (MTH) to support patient self-management is a key area of research. Providing patients with technological tools that allow for the recording and transmission of health parameters to health care professionals (HCPs) may promote behavior changes that result in improved health outcomes. Although for some conditions the evidence of the effectiveness of MTH is clear, to date the findings on the effects of MTH on diabetes management remain inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate an MTH intervention among insulin-requiring adults with diabetes to establish whether supplementing standard care with MTH results in improved health outcomes-glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), diabetes self-management behaviors, diabetes health care utilization, and diabetes self-efficacy and illness beliefs. An additional objective was to explore the acceptability of MTH and patients' perceptions of, and experience, using it. METHODS: A mixed-method design consisting of a 9-month, two-arm, parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) was used in combination with exit qualitative interviews. Quantitative data was collected at baseline, 3 months, and 9 months. Additional intervention fidelity data, such as participants' MTH transmissions and contacts with the MTH nurse during the study, were also recorded. RESULTS: Data collection for both the quantitative and qualitative components of this study has ended and data analysis is ongoing. A total of 86 participants were enrolled into the study. Out of 86 participants, 45 (52%) were randomized to the intervention group and 36 (42%) to the control group. Preliminary data on MTH training sessions and MTH usage by intervention participants are presented in this paper. We expect to publish complete study results in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: The range of data collected in this study will allow for a comprehensive evaluation of processes and outcomes. The early results presented suggest that MTH usage decreases over time and that MTH participants would benefit from attending more than one training session. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00922376; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00922376 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Vu4nhLI6)

Intra-cluster correlation coefficients in adults with diabetes in primary care practices: the Vermont Diabetes Information System field survey

BACKGROUND: Proper estimation of sample size requirements for cluster-based studies requires estimates of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) for the variables of interest. METHODS: We calculated the ICC for 112 variables measured as part of the Vermont Diabetes Information System, a cluster-randomized study of adults with diabetes from 73 primary care practices (the clusters) in Vermont and surrounding areas. RESULTS: ICCs varied widely around a median value of 0.0185 (Inter-quartile range: 0.006, 0.037). Some characteristics (such as the proportion having a recent creatinine measurement) were highly associated with the practice (ICC = 0.288), while others (prevalence of some comorbidities and complications and certain aspects of quality of life) varied much more across patients with only small correlation within practices (ICC<0.001). CONCLUSION: The ICC values reported here may be useful in designing future studies that use clustered sampling from primary care practices

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

Effectiveness of a self-management intervention with personalised genetic and lifestyle-related risk information on coronary heart disease and diabetes-related risk in type 2 diabetes (CoRDia): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Many patients with type 2 diabetes fail to achieve good glycaemic control. Poor control is associated with complications including coronary heart disease (CHD). Effective self-management and engagement in health behaviours can reduce risks of complications. However, patients often struggle to adopt and maintain these behaviours. Self-management interventions have been found to be effective in improving glycaemic control. Recent developments in the field of genetics mean that patients can be given personalised information about genetic- and lifestyle-associated risk of developing CHD. Such information may increase patients’ motivation to engage in self-management. The Coronary Risk in Diabetes (CoRDia) trial will compare the effectiveness of a self-management intervention, with and without provision of personalised genetic- and lifestyle-associated risk information, with usual care, on clinical and behavioural outcomes, the cognitive predictors of behaviour, and psychological wellbeing. Methods/Design Participants will be adults aged 25–74 years registered with general practices in the East of England, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, with no history of heart disease, and with a glycated haemoglobin level of ≥6.45 % (47 mmol/mol). Consenting participants will be randomised to one of three arms: usual care control, group self-management only, group self-management plus personalised genetic- and lifestyle-associated risk information. The self-management groups will receive four weekly 2-hour group sessions, focusing on knowledge and information sharing, problem solving, goal setting and action planning to promote medication adherence, healthy eating, and physical activity. Primary outcomes are glycaemic control and CHD risk. Clinical data will be collected from GP records, including HbA1c, weight, body mass index, blood pressure, and HDL and total cholesterol. Self-reported health behaviours, including medication adherence, healthy eating and physical activity, and cognitive outcomes will be assessed by questionnaire. Measures will be taken at baseline, 3 months (questionnaire only), 6 months and 12 months post-baseline. Discussion This study will determine whether the addition of personalised genetic- and lifestyle-associated CHD risk information to a group self-management intervention improves diabetes control and CHD risk compared with group self-management and usual care. Effectiveness of the combined intervention on health behaviours cognitions theorised to predict them, and psychological outcomes will also be investigated. Trial registration This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; registration identifier NCT01891786, registered 28 June 2013