Article

Integrating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Depression Treatment Among African Americans A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

Hillary R. Bogner, MSCE, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, School of Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 2 Gates Building, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
The Diabetes Educator (Impact Factor: 1.92). 03/2010; 36(2):284-92. DOI: 10.1177/0145721709356115
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine whether integrating depression treatment into care for type 2 diabetes mellitus among older African Americans improved medication adherence, glycemic control, and depression outcomes.
Older African Americans prescribed pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus and depression from physicians at a large primary care practice in west Philadelphia were randomly assigned to an integrated care intervention or usual care. Adherence was assessed at baseline, 2, 4, and 6 weeks using the Medication Event Monitoring System to assess adherence. Outcomes assessed at baseline and 12 weeks included standard laboratory tests to measure glycemic control and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) to assess depression.
In all, 58 participants aged 50 to 80 years participated. The proportion of participants who had 80% or greater adherence to an oral hypoglycemic (intervention 62.1% vs usual care 24.1%) and an antidepressant (intervention 62.1% vs usual care 10.3%) was greater in the intervention group in comparison with the usual care group at 6 weeks. Participants in the integrated care intervention had lower levels of glycosylated hemoglobin (intervention 6.7% vs usual care 7.9%) and fewer depressive symptoms (CES-D mean scores: intervention 9.6 vs usual care 16.6) compared with participants in the usual care group at 12 weeks.
A pilot randomized controlled trial integrating type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment and depression was successful in improving outcomes among older African Americans. Integrated interventions may be more feasible and effective in real-world practices with competing demands for limited resources.

0 Followers
 · 
129 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medication adherence is associated with improved outcomes in diabetes. Interventions have been established to help improve medication adherence; however, the most effective interventions in patients with Type 2 diabetes remain unclear. The goal of this study was to distinguish whether interventions were effective and identify areas for future research.
    01/2014; 4(1):29-48. DOI:10.2217/dmt.13.62
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We conducted a feasibility study of a telehealth intervention (an electronic pill box) and an m-health intervention (an app on a smartphone) for improving medication adherence in older adults with heart failure. A secondary aim was to compare patient acceptance of the devices. The participants were 60 adults with HF (65% male). Their average age was 69 years and 83% were Caucasian. Patients were randomized using a 2 × 2 design to one of four groups: pillbox silent, pillbox reminding, smartphone silent, smartphone reminding. We examined adherence to 4 medications over 28 days. The overall adherence rate was 78% (SD 35). People with the telehealth device adhered 80% of the time and people with the smartphone adhered 76% of the time. Those who received reminders adhered 79% of the time, and those with passive medication reminder devices adhered 78% of the time, i.e. reminding did not improve adherence. Patients preferred the m-health approach. Future interventions may need to address other contributors to poor adherence such as motivation.
    Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 06/2014; 20(6). DOI:10.1177/1357633X14541039 · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The global prevalence of diabetes is increasing. Medications are a recommended strategy to control hyperglycaemia. However, patient adherence can be variable, impacting health outcomes. A range of interventions for patients with type 2 diabetes have focused on improving treatment adherence. This review evaluates the impact of these interventions on adherence to anti-diabetic medications and focuses on the methods and tools used to measure adherence. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, IPA, PUBmed, and PsychINFO were searched for relevant articles published in 2000-2013, using appropriate search terms. Fifty two studies addressing adherence to anti-diabetic medications in patients with type 2 diabetes met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Each study was assessed for research design, method(s) used for measuring medication adherence, and impact of intervention on medication adherence and glycaemic control. Fourteen studies were published in 2000-2009 and 38 in 2010-2013. Twenty two interventions led to improvements in adherence to anti-diabetic medications, while only nine improved both medication adherence and glycaemic control. A single strategy could not be identified which would be guaranteed to improve anti-diabetic medication adherence consistently. Nonetheless, most interventions were successful in influencing one or more of the outcomes assessed, indicating the usefulness of these interventions under certain circumstances. Self-report, particularly the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities questionnaire was the most commonly used tool to assess medication adherence, although other self-report tools were used in more recent studies. Overall, there was a slight increase in the number of studies that employed multiple methods to assess medication adherence in studies conducted after 2008. The diversity of interventions and adherence measurements prevented a meta-analysis of the impact of interventions on adherence to therapy, highlighting the need for more consistency in methods in the area of adherence research. Whilst effective interventions were identified, it is not possible to conclude on an effective intervention that can be generalised to all patients with type 2 diabetes.
    PLoS ONE 02/2015; 10(2):e0118296. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0118296 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
1 Download
Available from