Article

The Chronic Care Model and Exercise Discussions during Primary Care Diabetes Encounters

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, TX 78229-3900, USA.
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.85). 01/2011; 24(1):26-32. DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2011.01.100137
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT discussing self-care activities like exercise is challenging with the many competing demands during primary care encounters. Our objective was to study the relationship between the Chronic Care Model (CCM) score in the clinic and time spent by the physicians discussing exercise during encounters with diabetic patients.
consecutive patients with diabetes across 20 primary care clinics in South Texas were included. Time spent discussing exercise was determined using the Davis Observation Code on audio recordings of the visits. Clinicians completed the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care survey, a validated measure of the extent to which care delivered is consistent with the CCM. Data were analyzed using hierarchical linear models.
a total of 162 transcribed recordings were analyzed. Age, the number of problems addressed, stage of change (SOC), and overall length of the visit were associated with time spent discussing exercise. There was a significant relationship between clinic CCM score and time spent by physicians advising about exercise, independent of SOC for exercise (P < .01). Also, a discussion about exercise was more likely to occur with patients who were in the contemplation SOC for exercise.
discussions of exercise may be 18 to 33 seconds longer in clinics with full implementation of the CCM compared with those with basic implementation. Facilitating more complete CCM implementation in clinics with a basic level of CCM that serve a population of patients who are sedentary may realize the most benefit.

0 Followers
 · 
47 Views
  • The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 01/2011; 24(1):1-3. DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2011.01.100261 · 1.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Moderate intensity physical activity is recommended for individuals with diabetes to control glucose and prevent diabetes-related complications. The extent to which a diabetes diagnosis motivates patients to increase physical activity is unclear. This study used data from the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study (baseline data collected from 1993-1998) to examine change in physical activity and sedentary behavior in women who reported a diabetes diagnosis compared to women who did not report diabetes over 7 years of follow-up (up to 2005). Participants (n=84,300) were post-menopausal women who did not report diabetes at baseline [mean age=63.49; standard deviation (SD)=7.34; mean BMI=26.98 kg/m; SD=5.67]. Linear mixed model analyses were conducted adjusting for study year, age, race/ethnicity, BMI, education, family history of diabetes, physical functioning, pain, energy/fatigue, social functioning, depression, number of chronic diseases and vigorous exercise at age 18. Analyses were completed in August 2012. Participants who reported a diabetes diagnosis during follow-up were more likely to report increasing their total physical activity (p=0.002), walking (p<0.001) and number of physical activity episodes (p<0.001) compared to participants who did not report a diabetes diagnosis. On average, participants reporting a diabetes diagnosis reported increasing their total physical activity by 0.49 MET-hours/week, their walking by 0.033 MET-hours/week and their number of physical activity episodes by 0.19 MET-hours/week. No differences in reported sedentary behavior change were observed (p=0.48). A diabetes diagnosis may prompt patients to increase physical activity. Healthcare professionals should consider how best to capitalize on this opportunity to encourage increased physical activity and maintenance.
    Medicine and science in sports and exercise 07/2013; 46(1). DOI:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182a33010 · 4.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the promising findings related to the efficacy of interventions aimed at promoting physical activity (PA) in primary health care (PHC), the translation of these interventions to PHC practice does not always happen as desired. To help understand why efficacious PHC-based PA interventions are not effectively translated to practice, this study systematically reviewed the literature on factors influencing PHC professionals' PA promotion practices. Literature searches were conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycINFO for peer-reviewed articles published in English from 1990 onwards. Studies were included that met the following criteria: (1) involving PHC-based PA interventions, and (2) reporting factors influencing PHC professionals' PA promotion behaviors. Two researchers independently screened studies and extracted data. A narrative synthesis using thematic analysis was conducted to identify factors. Of the 4,469 identified articles, 59 were included in the review. Factors were identified by qualitative methods, barrier/facilitator ratings, and the examination of the relationship between factors and PA promotion, and the effectiveness of introduction strategies. Many factors related to the development, delivery, and effects of the innovation, the sociopolitical and organizational culture, resources, and support, patient and PHC professional characteristics, and innovation strategies were identified as potential influences on PHC professionals' PA promotion practices. However, the lack of evidence on the relationship between factors and PA promotion indicated insufficient evidence on PA promotion determinants. This extensive overview of potential factors can inform intervention developers and implementers on which factors may play a role when introducing PA interventions in PHC. Future research should further investigate relationships between factors and PA promotion, which should be guided by qualitative in-depth knowledge on influencing factors.
    International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 05/2014; 22(1). DOI:10.1007/s12529-014-9398-2 · 2.63 Impact Factor