The effect of feedback to general practitioners on quality of care for people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There have been numerous efforts to improve and assure the quality of treatment and follow-up of people with Type 2 diabetes (PT2D) in general practice. Facilitated by the increasing usability and validity of guidelines, indicators and databases, feedback on diabetes care is a promising tool in this aspect. Our goal was to assess the effect of feedback to general practitioners (GPs) on the quality of care for PT2D based on the available literature.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Systematic review searches were conducted using October 2008 updates of Medline (Pubmed), Cochrane library and Embase databases. Additional searches in reference lists and related articles were conducted. Papers were included if published in English, performed as randomized controlled trials, studying diabetes, having general practice as setting and using feedback to GPs on diabetes care. The papers were assessed according to predefined criteria.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ten studies complied with the inclusion criteria. Feedback improved the care for PT2D, particularly process outcomes such as foot exams, eye exams and Hba1c measurements. Clinical outcomes like lowering of blood pressure, Hba1c and cholesterol levels were seen in few studies. Many process and outcome measures did not improve, while none deteriorated. Meta analysis was unfeasible due to heterogeneity of the studies included. Two studies used electronic feedback.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Based on this review, feedback seems a promising tool for quality improvement in diabetes care, but more research is needed, especially of electronic feedback.</p

Primary care nurses struggle with lifestyle counseling in diabetes care: a qualitative analysis

Contains fulltext : 89605.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Patient outcomes are poorly affected by lifestyle advice in general practice. Promoting lifestyle behavior change require that nurses shift from simple advice giving to a more counseling-based approach. The current study examines which barriers nurses encounter in lifestyle counseling to patients with type 2 diabetes. Based on this information we will develop an implementation strategy to improve lifestyle behavior change in general practice. METHOD: In a qualitative semi-structured study, twelve in-depth interviews took place with nurses in Dutch general practices involved in diabetes care. Specific barriers in counseling patients with type 2 diabetes about diet, physical activity, and smoking cessation were addressed. The nurses were invited to reflect on barriers at the patient and practice levels, but mainly on their own roles as counselors. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The data were analyzed with the aid of a predetermined framework. RESULTS: Nurses felt most barriers on the level of the patient; patients had limited knowledge of a healthy lifestyle and limited insight into their own behavior, and they lacked the motivation to modify their lifestyles or the discipline to maintain an improved lifestyle. Furthermore, nurses reported lack of counseling skills and insufficient time as barriers in effective lifestyle counseling. CONCLUSIONS: The traditional health education approach is still predominant in primary care of patients with type 2 diabetes. An implementation strategy based on motivational interviewing can help to overcome 'jumping ahead of the patient' and promotes skills in lifestyle behavioral change. We will train our nurses in agenda setting to structure the consultation based on prioritizing the behavior change and will help them to develop social maps that contain information on local exercise programs

Impacts of carbohydrate-restricted diets on micronutrient intakes and status: a systematic review

A systematic review of published evidence on micronutrient intake/status with carbohydrate‐restricted diets (CRD) was conducted in Web of Science, Medline, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to October 2018. We identified 10 studies: seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (“Atkins”‐style, n = 5; “Paleolithic” diets, n = 2), two Atkins‐style noncontrolled trials and one cross‐sectional study. Prescribed carbohydrate varied 4% to 34% of energy intake. Only one noncontrolled trial prescribed multivitamin supplements. Dietary intakes/status were reported over 2 to 104 weeks, with weight losses from 2 to 9 kg. No diagnoses of deficiency were reported. Intakes of thiamine, folate, magnesium, calcium, iron, and iodine all decreased significantly (−10% to −70% from baseline) with any CRD types. Atkins diet trials (n = 6; 4%‐34%E carbohydrate) showed inconsistent changes in vitamin A, E, and β‐carotene intakes, while a single “Paleolithic” diet trial (28%E carbohydrate) reported increases in these micronutrients. One other “Paleolithic” diet (30%E carbohydrate) reported a rise in moderate iodine deficiency from 15% to 73% after 6 months. In conclusion, few studies have assessed the impacts of CRD on micronutrients. Studies with different designs point towards reductions in several vitamins and minerals, with potential risk of micronutrient inadequacies. Trial reporting standards are expected to include analysis of micronutrient intake/status. Micronutrients in foods and/or supplements should be considered when designing, prescribing or following CRDs

Impact of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management on women's knowledge and intentions: a randomised online experimental survey study.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification using genetic and other types of personal information could improve current best available approaches to ovarian cancer risk reduction, improving identification of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer and reducing unnecessary interventions for women at lower risk. Amounts of information given to women may influence key informed decision-related outcomes, e.g. knowledge. The primary aim of this study was to compare informed decision-related outcomes between women given one of two versions (gist vs. extended) of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management. METHODS: This was an experimental survey study comparing the effects of brief (gist) information with lengthier, more detailed (extended) information on cognitions relevant to informed decision-making about participating in risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Women with no personal history of ovarian cancer were recruited through an online survey company and randomised to view the gist (n = 512) or extended (n = 519) version of a website-based decision aid and completed an online survey. Primary outcomes were knowledge and intentions. Secondary outcomes included attitudes (values) and decisional conflict. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the gist and extended conditions in knowledge about ovarian cancer (time*group interaction: F = 0.20, p = 0.66) or intention to participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment (t(1029) = 0.43, p = 0.67). There were also no between-groups differences in secondary outcomes. In the sample overall (n = 1031), knowledge about ovarian cancer increased from before to after exposure to the decision aid (from 5.71 to 6.77 out of a possible 10: t = 19.04, p < 0.001), and 74% of participants said that they would participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in knowledge or intentions were found between women who viewed the gist version and women who viewed the extended version of a decision aid about risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Knowledge increased for women in both decision aid groups. Further research is needed to determine the ideal volume and type of content for decision aids about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry; registration number: ISRCTN48627877 .This work was funded by Cancer Research UK (Grant Code: C1005/A12677) and The Eve Appeal Gynaecological Cancer Charity