Randomized effectiveness trial of a computer-assisted intervention to improve diabetes care
ABSTRACT There is a well-documented gap between diabetes care guidelines and the services received by patients in most health care settings. This report presents 12-month follow-up results from a computer-assisted, patient-centered intervention to improve the level of recommended services patients received from a variety of primary care settings.
A total of 886 patients with type 2 diabetes under the care of 52 primary care physicians participated in the Diabetes Priority Program. Physicians were stratified and randomized to intervention or control conditions and evaluated on two primary outcomes: number of recommended laboratory screenings and recommended patient-centered care activities completed from the National Committee on Quality Assurance/American Diabetes Association Provider Recognition Program (PRP). Secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Problem Areas in Diabetes 2 quality of life scale, lipid and HbA1c levels, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression scale.
The program was well implemented and significantly improved both the number of laboratory assays and patient-centered aspects of diabetes care patients received compared with those in the control condition. There was overall improvement on secondary outcomes of lipids, HbA1c, quality of life, and depression scores; between-condition differences were not significant.
Staff in small, mixed-payer primary care offices can consistently implement a patient-centered intervention to improve PRP measures of quality of diabetes care. Alternative explanations for why these process improvements did not lead to improved outcomes, and suggested directions for future research are discussed.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Alanna Kulchak Rahm, May 07, 2015
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Structured patient education programs can reduce the risk of diabetes-related complications. However, people appear to have difficulties attending face-to-face education and alternatives are needed. This review looked at the impact of computer-based diabetes self-management interventions on health status, cardiovascular risk factors, and quality of life of adults with type 2 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL for relevant trials from inception to November 2011. Reference lists from relevant published studies were screened and authors contacted for further information when required. Two authors independently extracted relevant data using standard data extraction templates.RESULTS: Sixteen randomized controlled trials with 3,578 participants met the inclusion criteria. Interventions were delivered via clinics, the Internet, and mobile phones. Computer-based diabetes self-management interventions appear to have small benefits on glycemic control: the pooled effect on HbA1c was -0.2% (-2.3 mmol/mol [95% CI -0.4 to -0.1%]). A subgroup analysis on mobile phone-based interventions showed a larger effect: the pooled effect on HbA1c from three studies was -0.50% (-5.46 mmol/mol [95% CI -0.7 to -0.3%]). There was no evidence of improvement in depression, quality of life, blood pressure, serum lipids, or weight. There was no evidence of significant adverse effects.CONCLUSIONS: Computer-based diabetes self-management interventions to manage type 2 diabetes appear to have a small beneficial effect on blood glucose control, and this effect was larger in the mobile phone subgroup. There was no evidence of benefit for other biological, cognitive, behavioral, or emotional outcomes.Diabetes Care 06/2014; 37(6):1759-1766. DOI:10.2337/dc13-1386 · 8.57 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite more than 30 years of effort that has been dedicated to the improvement of grading systems for evaluating the quality of research study designs considerable shortcomings continue. These shortcomings include the failure to define key terms, provide a comprehensive list of design flaws, demonstrate the reliability of such grading systems, properly value non-randomized controlled trials, and develop theoretically-derived systems for penalizing and promoting the evidence generated by a study. Consequently, in light of the importance of grading guidelines in evidence-based medicine, steps must be taken to remedy these deficiencies. This article presents two methods—a grading system and a measure of methodological bias—of evaluating the quality of evidence produced by an efficacy study.Evaluation and Program Planning 08/2014; 48. DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.08.003 · 0.90 Impact Factor