Self management interventions for type 2 diabetes in adult people with severe mental illness

DIAMONDS-a diabetes self-management intervention for people with severe mental illness: protocol for an individually randomised controlled multicentre trial

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is two to three times more common in people with severe mental illness (SMI) than in the general population. Supporting self-management in diabetes is fundamental to improving clinical outcomes. The DIAMONDS trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a novel, codesigned, supported diabetes self-management programme for people with T2DM and SMI.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre, two-armed, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial will be conducted in National Health Service mental health trusts across England. We will recruit 380 participants (≥18 years old) with a diagnosis of SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, psychosis and severe depression) and T2DM. Eligible and consenting participants will be randomised to the DIAMONDS intervention or treatment as usual. The intervention group will receive one-to-one sessions with a trained DIAMONDS Coach for six months. These sessions will focus on goal setting, action planning and diabetes self-management education, supported by a paper-based workbook and an optional digital application. Individuals allocated to the control group will continue to receive usual care and may be offered National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended generic diabetes self-management education programmes in line with usual practice. The primary outcome is the difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) between both groups at 12 months postrandomisation. The secondary outcomes include measures of physical and mental health, diabetes complications and physical activity. Economic and process evaluations will also be performed. Outcomes will be collected at baseline and at six and 12 month post-randomisation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethics approval by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 3 (22/WS/0117). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed, academic and professional journals. We will also be producing plain language summaries, infographics and audio summaries on the website, as well as attending conferences and dissemination events. A summary of the results will be distributed to all participants and other relevant stakeholders, and we will use social media channels, websites and knowledge exchange events to communicate our findings beyond academic audiences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN22275538.

The effectiveness of diabetes training of psychiatric health professionals on individuals with diabetes and psychiatric disorders - a pragmatic controlled trial in Denmark

BACKGROUND

Individuals with diabetes and co-existing psychiatric disorders have more diabetes complications and lower life expectancy than those with diabetes but no co-existing psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric health professionals may have a role in improving these outcomes but often lack diabetes knowledge and skills. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of a diabetes training course for psychiatric health professionals on their diabetes knowledge and skills and clinical outcomes, diabetes support and diabetes distress among individuals with diabetes and psychiatric disorders treated in psychiatric outpatient clinics.

METHODS

A pragmatic non-randomized controlled cluster trial was conducted in eight psychiatric outpatient clinics in Denmark. All psychiatric health professionals from four clinics participated in the diabetes training course (the intervention) and completed a questionnaire on experience of the training course and a 20-item pre- and post-test to measure diabetes knowledge and skills. Difference in pre- and post-tests were analyzed using t-tests. From August 2018 - June 2019, individuals with diabetes were recruited from the intervention clinics (n = 49) and from four control clinics continuing usual clinical practice (n = 57). Differences in clinical outcomes, diabetes support and diabetes distress between the intervention and control groups at six and 12 months after the training course, were analyzed using logistic and linear regression models adjusted for baseline levels.

RESULTS

Psychiatric health professionals (n = 64) had more correct answers after completing the course, with a mean increase of 6.3 [95% CI 5.6 to 7.0] correct answers. A total of 49 and 57 individuals were recruited for the intervention and control group, respectively. At follow-up, individuals treated in the intervention group had lower levels (clinical improvement) of systolic blood pressure, but had lower receipt of annual assessment of blood pressure, and body mass index (BMI) (worsening of process measures). While there were observed differences in odds and means for several other outcomes, none of these received statistical significance (see Table 2 and Fig. 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Training psychiatric health professionals in diabetes care improved their diabetes knowledge and skills and improved clinical levels of systolic blood pressure in individuals treated in the intervention group. However, this training intervention was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving annual assessment of blood pressure and BMI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry registration number ISRCTN15523920, registration date: 02/10/2019.

The Determinants of Mental Illness Self-Management for Patients With Schizophrenia and Type 2 Diabetes: A Self-Determination Theory Approach

AIM

This study based on self-determination theory aimed to assess the relationship between motivation, competence in diabetes management and perceived autonomy support respectively and mental illness self-management; furthermore, the authors intended to explore the determinants of mental illness self-management for patients with schizophrenia and diabetes.

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study.

METHODS

One hundred ten participants were recruited at the psychiatric hospital and assessed with the Illness Management and Recovery Scale, the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire, the Perceived Competence Scale for Diabetes and the Health-Care Climate Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Patients with lower educational levels, who were admitted to the chronic ward, were unemployed, had lower motivation in illness management, lower competence in diabetes management and perceived lower autonomy support all had lower mental illness self-management. Competence in diabetes management, employment status, autonomy support, educational levels and living alone were the determinants of mental illness self-management.

CONCLUSION

Recovery from schizophrenia and comorbid diabetes is an enduring and complicated process requiring support from healthcare providers. Health professionals should assess the levels of illness self-management and provide integrated care interventions for patients with schizophrenia and diabetes, helping them manage both conditions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE

The illness management programme could apply to patients with schizophrenia and diabetes and address patients' characteristics such as low levels of education, living alone and being unemployed while additionally promoting motivation and competence, and providing supporting autonomy.

REPORTING METHOD

The STROBE checklist was followed.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients with schizophrenia and diabetes were recruited for this study and voluntarily completed the questionnaire.

A core outcome set for trials evaluating self-management interventions in people with severe mental illness and coexisting type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

People with severe mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, have higher rates of type 2 diabetes and worse outcomes, compared to those without SMI and it is not known whether diabetes self-management interventions are effective for people who have both conditions. Research in this area has been impeded by a lack of consensus on which outcomes to prioritise in people with co-existing SMI and diabetes.

AIMS

To develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in effectiveness trials of diabetes self-management interventions in adults with both type 2 diabetes and SMI.

METHODS

The COS was developed in three stages: (i) identification of outcomes from systematic literature review of intervention studies, followed by multi-stakeholder and service user workshops; (ii) rating of outcomes in a two-round online Delphi survey; (iii) agreement of final 'core' outcomes through a stakeholder consensus workshop.

RESULTS

Seven outcomes were selected: glucose control, blood pressure, body composition (body weight, BMI, body fat), health-related quality of life, diabetes self-management, diabetes-related distress and medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

This COS is recommended for future trials of effectiveness of diabetes self-management interventions for people with SMI and type 2 diabetes. Its use will ensure trials capture important outcomes and reduce heterogeneity so findings can be readily synthesised to inform practice and policy.

Establishing a Care Continuum for Cardiometabolic Conditions for Patients with Serious Mental Illness

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Addressing cardiometabolic risk factors in persons with serious mental illness requires early screening and proactive medical management in both medical and mental health settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death for persons with serious mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, much of which is driven by a high prevalence of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and tobacco use. We summarize barriers and recent approaches to screening and treatment for metabolic cardiovascular risk factors within physical health and specialty mental health settings. Incorporating system-based and provider-level support within physical health and psychiatric clinical settings should contribute to improvement for screening, diagnosis, and treatment for cardiometabolic conditions for patients with SMI. Targeted education for clinicians and leveraging multi-disciplinary teams are important first steps to recognize and treat populations with SMI at risk of CVD.

The lived experience of severe mental illness and long-term conditions: a qualitative exploration of service user, carer, and healthcare professional perspectives on self-managing co-existing mental and physical conditions

BACKGROUND

People with severe mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, have higher rates of physical long-term conditions (LTCs), poorer health outcomes, and shorter life expectancy compared with the general population. Previous research exploring SMI and diabetes highlights that people with SMI experience barriers to self-management, a key component of care in long-term conditions; however, this has not been investigated in the context of other LTCs. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experience of co-existing SMI and LTCs for service users, carers, and healthcare professionals.

METHODS

A qualitative study with people with SMI and LTCs, their carers, and healthcare professionals, using semi-structured interviews, focused observations, and focus groups across the UK. Forty-one interviews and five focus groups were conducted between December 2018 and April 2019. Transcripts were coded by two authors and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified, 1) the precarious nature of living with SMI, 2) the circularity of life with SMI and LTCs, and 3) the constellation of support for self-management. People with co-existing SMI and LTCs often experience substantial difficulties with self-management of their health due to the competing demands of their psychiatric symptoms and treatment, social circumstances, and access to support. Multiple long-term conditions add to the burden of self-management. Social support, alongside person-centred professional care, is a key facilitator for managing health. An integrated approach to both mental and physical healthcare was suggested to meet service user and carer needs.

CONCLUSION

The demands of living with SMI present a substantial barrier to self-management for multiple co-existing LTCs. It is important that people with SMI can access person-centred, tailored support for their LTCs that takes into consideration individual circumstances and priorities.

A network analysis framework of genetic and nongenetic risks for type 2 diabetes

Both genetic and nongenetic factors have been found to be associated with type 2 diabetes, however, the correlation between them is still unclear. In the present study, we aimed to fully decipher the nongenetic and genetic factor association network for type 2 diabetes. We identified risk factors for type 2 diabetes by systematically searching for related meta-analyses and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) database. Among a total of 27,822 studies screened, 202 articles were eligible, from which 174 nongenetic factors and 210 genetic factors associated with type 2 diabetes were identified. Then, we obtained 584 associations between the nongenetic and genetic factors of type 2 diabetes, based on which a risk factor association network was conducted. The nongenetic factors could be classified into seven categories according to the Global Burden of Diseases (GBD). Of these seven categories of nongenetic factors, five were found to be correlated with genes associated with type 2 diabetes, including environmental risks, behavioral risks, metabolic risks, related disease of type 2 diabetes, and treatments. Specifically, air pollutants of environmental risks, alcohol using of behavioral risks, obesity of metabolic risks, rheumatoid arthritis of related disease risk, and simvastatin of treatment was correlated with the largest number of genes. In summary, the correlation between genetic factors and nongenetic factors identified in this study indicates that there is a common phenotype-genotype association in type 2 diabetes, with the combinations of genotypes ("genetic signature") clustering in phenotypes related to type 2 diabetes. Thus, we should take a systematic approach to explore the relationship of various factors for type 2 diabetes, as well as other noncommunicable diseases.

Identifying determinants of diabetes risk and outcomes for people with severe mental illness: a mixed-methods study

Background

People with severe mental illness experience poorer health outcomes than the general population. Diabetes contributes significantly to this health gap.

Objectives

The objectives were to identify the determinants of diabetes and to explore variation in diabetes outcomes for people with severe mental illness.

Design

Under a social inequalities framework, a concurrent mixed-methods design combined analysis of linked primary care records with qualitative interviews.

Setting

The quantitative study was carried out in general practices in England (2000–16). The qualitative study was a community study (undertaken in the North West and in Yorkshire and the Humber).

Participants

The quantitative study used the longitudinal health records of 32,781 people with severe mental illness (a subset of 3448 people had diabetes) and 9551 ‘controls’ (with diabetes but no severe mental illness), matched on age, sex and practice, from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (GOLD version). The qualitative study participants comprised 39 adults with diabetes and severe mental illness, nine family members and 30 health-care staff.

Data sources

The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (GOLD) individual patient data were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, Office for National Statistics mortality data and the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

Results

People with severe mental illness were more likely to have diabetes if they were taking atypical antipsychotics, were living in areas of social deprivation, or were of Asian or black ethnicity. A substantial minority developed diabetes prior to severe mental illness. Compared with people with diabetes alone, people with both severe mental illness and diabetes received more frequent physical checks, maintained tighter glycaemic and blood pressure control, and had fewer recorded physical comorbidities and elective admissions, on average. However, they had more emergency admissions (incidence rate ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.36) and a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality than people with diabetes but no severe mental illness (hazard ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 2.26). These paradoxical results may be explained by other findings. For example, people with severe mental illness and diabetes were more likely to live in socially deprived areas, which is associated with reduced frequency of health checks, poorer health outcomes and higher mortality risk. In interviews, participants frequently described prioritising their mental illness over their diabetes (e.g. tolerating antipsychotic side effects, despite awareness of harmful impacts on diabetes control) and feeling overwhelmed by competing treatment demands from multiple morbidities. Both service users and practitioners acknowledged misattributing physical symptoms to poor mental health (‘diagnostic overshadowing’).

Limitations

Data may not be nationally representative for all relevant covariates, and the completeness of recording varied across practices.

Conclusions

People with severe mental illness and diabetes experience poorer health outcomes than, and deficiencies in some aspects of health care compared with, people with diabetes alone.

Future work

These findings can inform the development of targeted interventions aimed at addressing inequalities in this population.

Study registration

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Central Portfolio Management System (37024); and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03534921.

Funding

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Mental health and diabetes self-management: assessing stakeholder perspectives from health centers in Northern Mexico

BACKGROUND

People living with diabetes have an increased risk of developing mental health issues. Mexico has observed a high prevalence of people living with diabetes suffering from mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression. Self-management programs have demonstrated promise in helping participants address and prevent not only physiological health complications but mental health issues as well. This qualitative study aimed to understand the mental health benefits of a diabetes self-management intervention for health centers in Northern Mexico and opportunities for improvement through assessing stakeholder perspectives.

METHODS

Trained research staff used a semi-structured questionnaire guide to conduct all interviews and focus groups from February-May 2018. Individual interviews (n = 16) were conducted face-to-face at four health center sites among all health center directors and key staff located throughout the state of Sonora. One focus group (n = 41) was conducted at each of the four health centers among intervention participants. Directed content analysis was used to establish themes by understanding relationships, identifying similar experiences, and determining patterns across datasets.

RESULTS

In total 57 health center directors, health center staff, and intervention participants were involved in the interviews and focus groups across the four health centers. Overall the analysis identified four themes throughout the data, two were categorized as benefits and two as improvements. The primary themes for participant benefits were an increase in self-efficacy and social support to manage their chronic conditions. These were evident from not only participant perspectives, but health staff observations. Conversely, increased family involvement, and increased mental health integration and services within diabetes care were identified themes for opportunities to improve the intervention to be more inclusive and holistic.

CONCLUSION

All stakeholders observed the benefits for intervention participants and opportunities for more inclusivity of the family and integration as well as an increase in mental health services. The themes identified demonstrated a need to more proactively enhance and utilize diabetes self-management as a means to improve mental health outcomes among people living with diabetes in Mexico. This is an opportunity to employ a more comprehensive approach to diabetes self-management, and integrate mental health services into overall diabetes care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02804698 . Registered on June 17, 2016.

Interventions for preventing type 2 diabetes in adults with mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increased in individuals with mental disorders. Much of the burden of disease falls on the populations of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological, behaviour change, and organisational interventions versus active and non-active comparators in the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes among people with mental illness in LMICs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, as well as three international trials registries. We also searched conference proceedings and checked the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. Searches are current up to 20 February 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological, behavioural or organisational interventions targeting the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes in adults with mental disorders in LMICs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors working independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

One hospital-based RCT with 150 participants (99 participants with schizophrenia) addressed our review's primary outcome of prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes onset. Low-certainty evidence from this study did not show a difference between atypical and typical antipsychotics in the development of diabetes at six weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 7.05) (among a total 99 participants with schizophrenia, 68 were in atypical and 31 were in typical antipsychotic groups; 55 participants without mental illness were not considered in the analysis). An additional 29 RCTs with 2481 participants assessed one or more of the review's secondary outcomes. All studies were conducted in hospital settings and reported on pharmacological interventions. One study, which we could not include in our meta-analysis, included an intervention with pharmacological and behaviour change components. We identified no studies of organisational interventions. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference between the use of atypical and typical antipsychotics for the outcomes of drop-outs from care (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.69; two studies with 144 participants), and fasting blood glucose levels (mean difference (MD) 0.05 lower, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.00; two studies with 211 participants). Participants who receive typical antipsychotics may have a lower body mass index (BMI) at follow-up than participants who receive atypical antipsychotics (MD 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81; two studies with 141 participants; moderate certainty of evidence), and may have lower total cholesterol levels eight weeks after starting treatment (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.43; one study with 112 participants). There was moderate certainty evidence suggesting no difference between the use of metformin and placebo for the outcomes of drop-outs from care (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.09 to 16.35; three studies with 158 participants). There was moderate-to-high certainty evidence of no difference between metformin and placebo for fasting blood glucose levels (endpoint data: MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.11; change from baseline data: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.22; five studies with 264 participants). There was high certainty evidence that BMI was lower for participants receiving metformin compared with those receiving a placebo (MD -1.37, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.70; five studies with 264 participants; high certainty of evidence). There was no difference between metformin and placebo for the outcomes of waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Low-certainty evidence from one study (48 participants) suggests there may be no difference between the use of melatonin and placebo for the outcome of drop-outs from care (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.66). Fasting blood glucose is probably reduced more in participants treated with melatonin compared with placebo (endpoint data: MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.01; change from baseline data: MD -0.24, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.09; three studies with 202 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference between melatonin and placebo for the outcomes of waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Very low-certainty evidence from one study (25 participants) suggests that drop-outs may be higher in participants treated with a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) compared with those receiving a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.01). It is uncertain if there is no difference in fasting blood glucose levels between these groups (MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.10; three studies with 141 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is no difference in BMI and depression between the TCA and SSRI antidepressant groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one study reported data on our primary outcome of interest, providing low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in risk between atypical and typical antipsychotics for the outcome of developing type 2 diabetes. We are therefore not able to draw conclusions on the prevention of type 2 diabetes in people with mental disorders in LMICs. For studies reporting on secondary outcomes, there was evidence of risk of bias in the results. There is a need for further studies with participants from LMICs with mental disorders, particularly on behaviour change and on organisational interventions targeting prevention of type 2 diabetes in these populations.

The best person (or machine) for the job: Rethinking task shifting in healthcare

Globally, health systems are faced with the difficult challenge of how to get the best results with the often limited number of health workers available to them. Exacerbating this challenge is the task of meeting ever-changing needs of service users and managing unprecedented technological advances. The process of matching skills to changing needs and opportunities is termed task shifting. It involves questioning health service goals, what health workers do, asking if it can be done in a better way, and implementing change. Task shifting in healthcare is often conceptualised as a process of transferring responsibility for 'simple' tasks from high-skilled but scarce health workers to those with less expertise and lower pay, and predominantly viewed as a means to reduce costs and promote efficiency. Here we present a position paper based on the work and expertise of the European Commission Expert Panel on Effective ways of Investing in Health. It contends that this is over simplistic, and aims to provide a new task shifting framework, informed by relevant evidence, and a series of recommendations. While far from comprehensive, there is a growing body of evidence that certain tasks traditionally undertaken by one type of health worker can be undertaken by others (or machines), in some cases to a higher standard, thus challenging the persistence of rigid professional boundaries. Task shifting has the potential to contribute to health systems strengthening when accompanied by adequate planning, resources, education, training and transparency.

Publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research: a multimethod study

Background

Bias in the publication and reporting of research findings (referred to as publication and related bias here) poses a major threat in evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Although this bias has been well documented in clinical research, little is known about its occurrence and magnitude in health services and delivery research.

Objectives

To obtain empirical evidence on publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research; to examine current practice in detecting/mitigating this bias in health services and delivery research systematic reviews; and to explore stakeholders’ perception and experiences concerning such bias.

Methods

The project included five distinct but interrelated work packages. Work package 1 was a systematic review of empirical and methodological studies. Work package 2 involved a survey (meta-epidemiological study) of randomly selected systematic reviews of health services and delivery research topics (n = 200) to evaluate current practice in the assessment of publication and outcome reporting bias during evidence synthesis. Work package 3 included four case studies to explore the applicability of statistical methods for detecting such bias in health services and delivery research. In work package 4 we followed up four cohorts of health services and delivery research studies (total n = 300) to ascertain their publication status, and examined whether publication status was associated with statistical significance or perceived ‘positivity’ of study findings. Work package 5 involved key informant interviews with diverse health services and delivery research stakeholders (n = 24), and a focus group discussion with patient and service user representatives (n = 8).

Results

We identified only four studies that set out to investigate publication and related bias in health services and delivery research in work package 1. Three of these studies focused on health informatics research and one concerned health economics. All four studies reported evidence of the existence of this bias, but had methodological weaknesses. We also identified three health services and delivery research systematic reviews in which findings were compared between published and grey/unpublished literature. These reviews found that the quality and volume of evidence and effect estimates sometimes differed significantly between published and unpublished literature. Work package 2 showed low prevalence of considering/assessing publication (43%) and outcome reporting (17%) bias in health services and delivery research systematic reviews. The prevalence was lower among reviews of associations than among reviews of interventions. The case studies in work package 3 highlighted limitations in current methods for detecting these biases due to heterogeneity and potential confounders. Follow-up of health services and delivery research cohorts in work package 4 showed positive association between publication status and having statistically significant or positive findings. Diverse views concerning publication and related bias and insights into how features of health services and delivery research might influence its occurrence were uncovered through the interviews with health services and delivery research stakeholders and focus group discussion conducted in work package 5.

Conclusions

This study provided prima facie evidence on publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research. This bias does appear to exist, but its prevalence and impact may vary depending on study characteristics, such as study design, and motivation for conducting the evaluation. Emphasis on methodological novelty and focus beyond summative assessments may mitigate/lessen the risk of such bias in health services and delivery research. Methodological and epistemological diversity in health services and delivery research and changing landscape in research publication need to be considered when interpreting the evidence. Collection of further empirical evidence and exploration of optimal health services and delivery research practice are required.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016052333 and CRD42016052366.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Are diabetes self-management programmes for the general diabetes population effective for people with severe mental illness?: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Diabetes self-management education programmes are effective in improving health outcomes in the general population with diabetes. However, it is not known if these programmes include people who also have a severe mental illness (SMI) and, if so, what their outcomes are. The aim of this review was to examine if evaluations of diabetes self-management education programmes included people with SMI, and if so, whether the interventions were beneficial for this population.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria for this systematic review, defined by PICOS criteria, were: Population - Adults with type 2 diabetes; Intervention - self-management education programme; Comparator - another active intervention or usual care; Outcomes of interest - inclusion of people with SMI and the clinical, behavioural and psychosocial outcomes in this population; Study design - randomised controlled trials. The following bibliographic databases were searched from January 2004 to April 2018: Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Allied and Complimentary Medicine Database, Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluations Database and CINAHL. Data were extracted on study characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, participant and intervention characteristics, number of participants with SMI, and outcomes for people with SMI, if reported. Authors were contacted by email for missing data.

RESULTS

A total of 410 trials were included. At least 42% of trials did not recruit any participants with SMI. Only nine confirmed inclusion of participants with SMI, of which six provided data on the number recruited. These six trials recruited a total of 1009 participants, of whom 31 (3.1%) had SMI. It was not possible to assess intervention effectiveness for people with SMI as none of the trials reported outcomes for these participants.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review confirms that people with SMI are often excluded from trials of diabetes self-management education, resulting in a lack of an evidence base on which to base treatment paths for this vulnerable population. It cannot be assumed that programmes developed for the general diabetes population meet the needs of people with SMI. Future research needs to examine if and how these programmes could be adapted for people with SMI or if new programmes are required.

Self-care research: Where are we now? Where are we going?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The beneficial effects of self-care include improved well-being and lower morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. In this article we address the current state of self-care research and propose an agenda for future research based on the inaugural conference of the International Center for Self-Care Research held in Rome, Italy in June 2019. The vision of this Center is a world where self-care is prioritized by individuals, families, and communities and is the first line of approach in every health care encounter. The mission of the Center is to lead the self-care research endeavor, improving conceptual clarity and promoting interdisciplinary work informed by a shared vision addressing knowledge gaps. A focused research agenda can deepen our theoretical understanding of self-care and the mechanisms underlying self-care, which can contribute to the development of effective interventions that improve outcomes.

METHODS

During conference discussions, we identified seven major reasons why self-care is challenging, which can be grouped into the general categories of behavior change and illness related factors. We identified six specific knowledge gaps that, if addressed, may help to address these challenges: the influence of habit formation on behavior change, resilience in the face of stressful life events that interfere with self-care, the influence of culture on self-care behavioral choices, the difficulty performing self-care with multiple chronic conditions, self-care in persons with severe mental illness, and the influence of others (care partners, family, peer supporters, and healthcare professionals) on self-care.

PLANS TO ACHIEVE RESULTS

To achieve the vision and mission of the Center, we will lead a collaborative program of research that addresses self-care knowledge gaps and improves outcomes, create a supportive international network for knowledge transfer and support of innovations in self-care research, and support and train others in self-care research. Beyond these specific short-term goals, important policy implications of this work are discussed.

Behavioral health conditions and potentially preventable diabetes-related hospitalizations in the United States: Findings from a national sample of commercial claims data

Objective

To characterize the relationship between potentially preventable hospitalizations (PPHs) for diabetes and behavioral health conditions in commercially insured working-age persons with diabetes in the United States.

Research design and methods

We retrospectively analyzed medical and pharmacy claims from services rendered between 2011 and 2013 for 229,039 adults with diabetes. Diabetes PPHs were identified using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Prevention Quality Indicators v6.0 logic. We used negative binomial-logit hurdle regression models to explore the adjusted relationships between diabetes PPHs and schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, anxiety, adjustment disorder, alcohol use disorder, and drug use disorder.

Results

A total of 4,521 diabetes PPHs were experienced by 3,246 of the persons in the sample. The 20.83% of persons with one or more behavioral health conditions experienced 43.62% (1,972/4,521; 95% CI 42.18%-45.07%) of all diabetes PPHs, and the 7.14% of persons with more than one diagnosed behavioral health condition experienced 24.77% (1,120/4,521; 95% CI 23.54%-26.05%) of all diabetes PPHs. After adjusting for sociodemographic and physical health covariates, patients with depression, schizophrenia, drug or alcohol use disorders, or multiple behavioral health conditions were at significantly increased risk of experiencing at least one diabetes PPH, while patients with depression, drug use disorder, or multiple behavioral health conditions were at significantly increased risk of experiencing recurring diabetes PPHs over time.

Conclusions

A number of behavioral health conditions are associated with diabetes PPHs, which are often preventable with timely, high-quality outpatient care. The results of this study will enable clinicians, payers, and policy-makers to better focus outpatient care interventions and resources within the population of persons with diabetes.

Supported self-management for people with type 2 diabetes: a meta-review of quantitative systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

Self-management support aims to give people with chronic disease confidence to actively manage their disease, in partnership with their healthcare provider. A meta-review can inform policy-makers and healthcare managers about the effectiveness of self-management support strategies for people with type 2 diabetes, and which interventions work best and for whom.

DESIGN

A meta-review of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed adapting Cochrane methodology.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Eight databases were searched for systematic reviews of RCTs from January 1993 to October 2016, with a pre-publication update in April 2017. Forward citation was performed on included reviews in Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Proceedings. We extracted data and assessed quality with the Revised-Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Glycaemic control as measured by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was the primary outcome. Body mass Index, lipid profiles, blood pressure and quality of life scoring were secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses reporting HbA1c were summarised in meta-forest plots; other outcomes were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

41 systematic reviews incorporating data from 459 unique RCTs in diverse socio-economic and ethnic communities across 33 countries were included. R-AMSTAR quality score ranged from 20 to 42 (maximum 44). Apart from one outlier, the majority of reviews found an HbA1c improvement between 0.2% and 0.6% (2.2-6.5 mmol/mol) at 6 months post-intervention, but attenuated at 12 and 24 months. Impact on secondary outcomes was inconsistent and generally non-significant. Diverse self-management support strategies were employed; no single approach appeared optimally effective (or ineffective). Effective programmes tended to be multi-component and provide adequate contact time (>10 hours). Technology-facilitated self-management support showed a similar impact as traditional approaches (HbA1c MD -0.21% to -0.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-management interventions using a range of approaches improve short-term glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes including culturally diverse populations. These findings can inform researchers, policy-makers and healthcare professionals re-evaluating the provision of self-management support in routine care. Further research should consider implementation and sustainability.

Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals are important contributors to healthcare quality and patient safety, but their performance does not always follow recommended clinical practice. There are many approaches to influencing practice among healthcare professionals. These approaches include audit and feedback, reminders, educational materials, educational outreach visits, educational meetings or conferences, use of local opinion leaders, financial incentives, and organisational interventions. In this review, we evaluated the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions. These interventions are aimed at changing the performance of healthcare professionals through interactions with patients, or through information provided by or to patients. Examples of patient-mediated interventions include 1) patient-reported health information, 2) patient information, 3) patient education, 4) patient feedback about clinical practice, 5) patient decision aids, 6) patients, or patient representatives, being members of a committee or board, and 7) patient-led training or education of healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions on healthcare professionals' performance (adherence to clinical practice guidelines or recommendations for clinical practice).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Ovid in March 2018, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in March 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) in September 2017, and OpenGrey, the Grey Literature Report and Google Scholar in October 2017. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and conducted cited reference searches for all included studies in October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing patient-mediated interventions to either usual care or other interventions to improve professional practice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel statistics and the random-effects model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) using inverse variance statistics. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies with a total of 12,268 patients. The number of healthcare professionals included in the studies ranged from 12 to 167 where this was reported. The included studies evaluated four types of patient-mediated interventions: 1) patient-reported health information interventions (for instance information obtained from patients about patients' own health, concerns or needs before a clinical encounter), 2) patient information interventions (for instance, where patients are informed about, or reminded to attend recommended care), 3) patient education interventions (intended to increase patients' knowledge about their condition and options of care, for instance), and 4) patient decision aids (where the patient is provided with information about treatment options including risks and benefits). For each type of patient-mediated intervention a separate meta-analysis was produced.Patient-reported health information interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 26 (95% CI 23 to 30) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 17 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). We are uncertain about the effect of patient-reported health information interventions on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (very low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes and adverse events were not reported in the included studies and resource use was poorly reported.Patient information interventions may improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 42) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 20 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient information interventions may have little or no effect on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of patient information interventions on undesirable patient health outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.Patient education interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 46 (95% CI 39 to 54) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 35 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient education interventions may slightly increase the number of patients with desirable health outcomes (low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.Patient decision aid interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 43) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 37 per 100 in the comparison group (usual care). Patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that two types of patient-mediated interventions, patient-reported health information and patient education, probably improve professional practice by increasing healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We consider the effect to be small to moderate. Other patient-mediated interventions, such as patient information may also improve professional practice (low-certainty evidence). Patient decision aids may make little or no difference to the number of healthcare professionals' adhering to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence).The impact of these interventions on patient health and satisfaction, adverse events and resource use, is more uncertain mostly due to very low certainty evidence or lack of evidence.

Barriers to effective diabetes management - a survey of people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

People with severe mental illnesses (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes and have poorer health outcomes than those with diabetes alone. To maintain good diabetes control, people with diabetes are advised to engage in several self-management behaviours. The aim of this study was to identify barriers or enablers of diabetes self-management experienced by people with SMI.

METHODS

Adults with type 2 diabetes and SMI were recruited through UK National Health Service organisations and mental health and diabetes charities. Participants completed an anonymous survey consisting of: Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA); CORE-10 measure of psychological distress; a measure of barriers and enablers of diabetes self-management based on the Theoretical Domains Framework; Diabetes UK care survey on receipt of 14 essential aspects of diabetes healthcare. To identify the strongest explanatory variables of SDSCA outcomes, significant variables (p < .05) identified from univariate analyses were entered into multiple regressions.

RESULTS

Most of the 77 participants had bipolar disorder (42%) or schizophrenia (36%). They received a mean of 7.6 (SD 3.0) diabetes healthcare essentials. Only 28.6% had developed a diabetes care plan with their health professional and only 40% reported receiving specialist psychological support. Engagement in self-management activities was variable. Participants reported taking medication on 6.1 (SD 2.0) days in the previous week but other behaviours were less frequent: general diet 4.1 (2.3) days; specific diet 3.6 (1.8) days, taking exercise 2.4 (2.1) days and checking feet on 1.7 (1.8) days. Smoking prevalence was 44%. Participants reported finding regular exercise and following a healthy diet particularly difficult. Factors associated with diabetes self-management included: the level of diabetes healthcare and support received; emotional wellbeing; priority given to diabetes; perceived ability to manage diabetes or establish a routine to do so; and perceived consequences of diabetes self-management.

CONCLUSIONS

Several aspects of diabetes healthcare and self-management are suboptimal in people with SMI. There is a need to improve diabetes self-management support for this population by integrating diabetes action plans into care planning and providing adequate psychological support to help people with SMI manage their diabetes.

Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in people with severe mental illness: an online cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVES

To establish healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views about clinical roles, and the barriers and enablers to delivery of diabetes care for people with severe mental illness (SMI).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, postal and online survey.

SETTING

Trusts within the National Health Service, mental health and diabetes charities, and professional bodies.

PARTICIPANTS

HCPs who care for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or SMI in the UK.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The barriers, enablers and experiences of delivering T2DM care for people with SMI, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

Respondents were 273 HCPs, primarily mental health nurses (33.7%) and psychiatrists (32.2%). Only 25% of respondents had received training in managing T2DM in people with SMI. Univariate analysis found that mental health professionals felt responsible for significantly fewer recommended diabetes care standards than physical health professionals (P<0.001). For those seeing diabetes care as part of their role, the significant barriers to its delivery in the multiple regression analyses were a lack of knowledge (P=0.003); a need for training in communication and negotiation skills (P=0.04); a lack of optimism about the health of their clients (P=0.04) and their ability to manage T2DM in people with SMI (P=0.003); the threat of being disciplined (P=0.02); fear of working with people with a mental health condition (P=0.01); a lack of service user engagement (P=0.006); and a need for incentives (P=0.04). The significant enablers were an understanding of the need to tailor treatments (P=0.04) and goals (P=0.02) for people with SMI.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey indicates that despite current guidelines, diabetes care in mental health settings remains peripheral. Even when diabetes care is perceived as part of an HCP's role, various individual and organisational barriers to delivering recommended T2DM care standards to people with SMI are experienced.

Barriers and enablers of type 2 diabetes self-management in people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes and severe mental illness (SMI) experience poorer outcomes than those with diabetes alone. To improve outcomes, it is necessary to understand the difficulties that people with SMI experience in managing their diabetes.

AIMS

To identify barriers and enablers to effective diabetes self-management experienced by people with SMI and type 2 diabetes.

METHOD

Qualitative methodology using semi-structured interviews was employed. Development of the interview topic guide and analysis of the transcripts were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework for behaviour change, which consists of fourteen theoretical domains that have been found to influence behaviour.

RESULTS

Fourteen people with SMI and type 2 diabetes took part in the study. Participants considered diabetes self-management to be important, were aware of the risks of poor diabetes control but struggled to follow recommended advice, particularly if their mental health was poor. Support from family and health professionals was considered an important enabler of diabetes self-management.

CONCLUSIONS

New approaches are required to support diabetes self-management in people with SMI. This study identified some of the important domains that may be targeted in new interventions.

What works for whom in the management of diabetes in people living with dementia: a realist review

BACKGROUND

Dementia and diabetes mellitus are common long-term conditions and co-exist in a large number of older people. People living with dementia (PLWD) may be less able to manage their diabetes, putting them at increased risk of complications such as hypoglycaemia. The aim of this review was to identify key mechanisms within different interventions that are likely to improve diabetes outcomes in PLWD.

METHODS

This is a realist review involving scoping of the literature and stakeholder interviews to develop theoretical explanations of how interventions might work, systematic searches of the evidence to test and develop the theories and their validation with a purposive sample of stakeholders. Twenty-six stakeholders - user/patient representatives, dementia care providers, clinicians specialising in diabetes or dementia and researchers - took part in interviews, and 24 participated in a consensus conference.

RESULTS

We included 89 papers. Ten focused on PLWD and diabetes, and the remainder related to people with either dementia, diabetes or other long-term conditions. We identified six context-mechanism-outcome configurations which provide an explanatory account of how interventions might work to improve the management of diabetes in PLWD. This includes embedding positive attitudes towards PLWD, person-centred approaches to care planning, developing skills to provide tailored and flexible care, regular contact, family engagement and usability of assistive devices. An overarching contingency emerged concerning the synergy between an intervention strategy, the dementia trajectory and social and environmental factors, especially family involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence highlighted the need for personalised care, continuity and family-centred approaches, although there was limited evidence that this happens routinely. This review suggests there is a need for a flexible service model that prioritises quality of life, independence and patient and carer priorities. Future research on the management of diabetes in older people with complex health needs, including those with dementia, needs to look at how organisational structures and workforce development can be better aligned to their needs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42015020625. Registered on 18 May 2015.

Self-management interventions to improve skin care for pressure ulcer prevention in people with spinal cord injuries: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are a serious, common, lifelong, and costly secondary complication of spinal cord injury (SCI). Community-dwelling people with a SCI can prevent them with appropriate skin care (i.e. pressure relieving activities, skin checks). Adherence to skin care remains suboptimal however, and self-management interventions that focus on improving this have been designed. Little is known on their content, effectiveness, or theoretical basis. The aim of the proposed systematic review is to synthesize the literature on self-management interventions to improve skin care in people with a SCI. Specific objectives are to describe these interventions in relation to their content, effectiveness, theory base, and adherence to reporting guidelines for intervention description.

METHODS

The search strategy will combine an electronic search of nine bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Rehabdata, CIRRIE, PEDro, ERIC) and two trial registers with a manual search of relevant reference lists. Predefined eligibility criteria will be applied in a two-phase selection process involving title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening. A data extraction spreadsheet will be applied to included papers. Intervention content will be coded using two taxonomies (behaviour change taxonomy; PRISMS self-management support taxonomy). A validated tool (Theory Coding Scheme) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) will be used to examine theoretical basis and assess adherence to reporting guidelines for intervention description. A small number of heterogeneous studies are likely to be included in this review therefore a narrative synthesis is planned.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will help identify the gaps and priorities to guide future research activities in this area.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016033191.