Impact of dose adjustment for normal eating in Australia (OzDAFNE) on subjective wellbeing, coping resources and negative affects in adults with type 1 diabetes: a prospective comparison study

The design of an evaluation framework for diabetes self-management education and support programs delivered nationally

BACKGROUND

The aim of this work was to develop a National Evaluation Framework to facilitate the standardization of delivery, quality, reporting, and evaluation of diabetes education and support programs delivered throughout Australia through the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS). The NDSS is funded by the Australian Government, and provides access to diabetes information, education, support, and subsidized product across diverse settings in each state and territory of Australia through seven independent service-providers. This article reports the approach undertaken to develop the Framework.

METHODS

A participatory approach was undertaken, focused on adopting nationally consistent outcomes and indicators, nominating objectives and measurement tools, specifying evaluation processes, and developing quality standards. Existing programs were classified based on related, overarching indicators enabling the adoption of a tiered system of evaluation.

RESULTS

Two outcomes (i.e., improved clinical, reduced cost) and four indicators (i.e., improved knowledge and understanding, self-management, self-determination, psychosocial adjustment) were adopted from the Eigenmann and Colagiuri national consensus position statement for diabetes education. This allowed for the identification of objectives (i.e., improved empowerment, reduced distress, autonomy supportive program delivery, consumer satisfaction) and related measurement instruments. Programs were categorized as comprehensive, topic-specific, or basic education, with comprehensive programs allocated to receive the highest-level of evaluation. Eight quality standards were developed, with existing programs tested against those standards. Based on the results of testing, two comprehensive (OzDAFNE for people with type 1 diabetes, DESMOND for people with type 2 diabetes), and eight topic-specific (CarbSmart, ShopSmart, MonitorSmart, FootSmart, MedSmart, Living with Insulin, Insulin Pump Workshop, Ready Set Go - Let's Move) structured diabetes self-management education and support programs were nominated for national delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

The National Evaluation Framework has facilitated consistency of program quality, delivery, and evaluation of programs delivered by multiple service providers across diverse contexts. The Framework could be applied by other service providers who facilitate multiple diabetes education and support programs and could be adapted for use in other chronic disease populations where education and support are indicated.

Evaluation of patient experience post structured education for diabetes self management (Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating-OzDAFNE)

AIMS

To examine OzDAFNE participant feedback to determine if OzDAFNE results in positive participant reported outcomes and experiences, improves quality of life; and to identify areas for improvement.

METHODS

Quantitative and qualitative evaluations of participants' experience were undertaken prior to, and at the end of, every OzDAFNE program from 2010 to 2019. Evaluations included Likert scale and open-ended questions. Responses were analysed descriptively, for response rates and to identify themes. Mean difference in Problem Area in Diabetes (PAID) score was calculated from pre-course to 12 months.

RESULTS

189 participants attended OzDAFNE. 93% rated the overall quality of OzDAFNE as "Excellent". Confidence in managing diabetes increased from 25% pre-OzDAFNE to 96% at completion. Major themes identified as most useful and relevant were carbohydrate counting (89/189), insulin adjustment (87/189) and exercise (46/189). At 12 months (n = 44), 97% were "mostly"/ "always" using OzDAFNE principles; 72% reported their diabetes control was "a lot better" than pre-OzDAFNE due to increased knowledge and implementation of principles. The value of the shared patient experience was reported at all time points. By 12 months, mean PAID score decreased significantly (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The OzDAFNE patient experience was very positive, with high satisfaction reported. Increased confidence and knowledge and ongoing implementation of principles resulted in improved diabetes management. OzDAFNE offers a patient-centred approach that is valued by participants.

Factors explaining variation in self-esteem among persons with type 1 diabetes and elevated HbA1c

OBJECTIVES

To investigate associations between perceived autonomy support from health-care professionals, autonomy-driven motivation, diabetes self-perceived competence and self-esteem in adults (age 18-55 yrs) with suboptimally regulated type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) with at least one HbA1c≥8.0% (≥64 mmol/mol) during the past year, and whether these factors could predict decrease in self-esteem over time.

METHODS

A cross-sectional population-based survey was performed, and 9 months follow-up data were collected. Data collection comprised clinical and socio-demographic variables, blood sampling (HbA1c) and self-report questionnaires; the Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ), Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ), the Perceived Competence in Diabetes Scale (PCDS), and the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSES). We fitted block-wise linear regression models to assess associations between RSES and variables of interest (HCCQ, TSRQ, PCDS, HbA1c, clinical and socio-demographic variables) and linear regression models to assess predictors of change over time.

FINDINGS

In this study sample, aged 36.7 (±10.7) mean HbA1c 9.3% (±1.1), 31.5% had long-term complications and 42.7% had experienced severe hypoglycemia within the previous 12 months. In the final regression model the association between PCDS and RSES was strongly significant (B = 1.99, p<0.001) and the associations between HCCQ, TSRQ and RSES were reduced to non-significance. All predictor variables combined explained 42% of the variability of RSES (adjusted R2 = 0.423) with PCDS contributing 18% to explained variance (R-square change = 0.184, p<0.001). The strongest predictors of change in RSES over time were long-term complications (B = 2.76, p<0.001), specifically foot-related problems, and being female (B = -2.16, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Perceived autonomy support, autonomy-driven motivation and diabetes self-perceived competence play a significant role in explaining self-esteem among adults with suboptimally regulated T1DM. Healthcare professionals should acknowledge self-esteem as a valuable factor in understanding the multifaceted health choices people with T1DM make.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov with identification number NCT 01317459.

A cluster randomised trial, cost-effectiveness analysis and psychosocial evaluation of insulin pump therapy compared with multiple injections during flexible intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes: the REPOSE Trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin is generally administered to people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) using multiple daily injections (MDIs), but can also be delivered using infusion pumps. In the UK, pumps are recommended for patients with the greatest need and adult use is less than in comparable countries. Previous trials have been small, of short duration and have failed to control for training in insulin adjustment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pump therapy compared with MDI for adults with T1DM, with both groups receiving equivalent structured training in flexible insulin therapy.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial, including economic and psychosocial evaluations. After participants were assigned a group training course, courses were randomly allocated in pairs to either pump or MDI.

SETTING

Eight secondary care diabetes centres in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with T1DM for > 12 months, willing to undertake intensive insulin therapy, with no preference for pump or MDI, or a clinical indication for pumps.

INTERVENTIONS

Pump or MDI structured training in flexible insulin therapy, followed up for 2 years. MDI participants used insulin analogues. Pump participants used a Medtronic Paradigm^® Veo^TM (Medtronic, Watford, UK) with insulin aspart (NovoRapid, Novo Nordisk, Gatwick, UK).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome - change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) at 2 years in participants whose baseline HbA_1c was ≥ 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Key secondary outcome - proportion of participants with HbA_1c ≤ 7.5% at 2 years. Other outcomes at 6, 12 and 24 months - moderate and severe hypoglycaemia; insulin dose; body weight; proteinuria; diabetic ketoacidosis; quality of life (QoL); fear of hypoglycaemia; treatment satisfaction; emotional well-being; qualitative interviews with participants and staff (2 weeks), and participants (6 months); and ICERs in trial and modelled estimates of cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

We randomised 46 courses comprising 317 participants: 267 attended a Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating course (132 pump; 135 MDI); 260 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, of which 235 (119 pump; 116 MDI) had baseline HbA_1c of ≥ 7.5%. HbA_1c and severe hypoglycaemia improved in both groups. The drop in HbA_1c% at 2 years was 0.85 on pump and 0.42 on MDI. The mean difference (MD) in HbA_1c change at 2 years, at which the baseline HbA_1c was ≥ 7.5%, was -0.24% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53% to 0.05%] in favour of the pump (p = 0.098). The per-protocol analysis showed a MD in change of -0.36% (95% CI -0.64% to -0.07%) favouring pumps (p = 0.015). Pumps were not cost-effective in the base case and all of the sensitivity analyses. The pump group had greater improvement in diabetes-specific QoL diet restrictions, daily hassle plus treatment satisfaction, statistically significant at 12 and 24 months and supported by qualitative interviews.

LIMITATION

Blinding of pump therapy was not possible, although an objective primary outcome was used.

CONCLUSION

Adding pump therapy to structured training in flexible insulin therapy did not significantly enhance glycaemic control or psychosocial outcomes in adults with T1DM.

RESEARCH PRIORITY

To understand why few patients achieve a HbA_1c of < 7.5%, particularly as glycaemic control is worse in the UK than in other European countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61215213.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The detection and management of diabetes distress in people with type 1 diabetes

Diabetes distress (DD) represents a significant clinical burden in which levels of DD are related to both glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and some self-management behaviours. DD is related to, but different from, depression. Differences in DD experienced in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes have been observed. Commonly measured using the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), rates of elevated DD in research study participants range from 20 to 30 %. Risk factors for elevated DD in type 1 diabetes are longer duration of diabetes, severe hypoglycaemia, younger age and being female. A systematic review of intervention studies assessing DD identified eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and nine pre-post design studies. Only three studies targeted DD with the intervention. Intervention types were diabetes self-management education (DSME), psychologically informed self-management and devices. DSME pre-post studies, namely the Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating (DAFNE) programme, produced more consistent improvements in DD and HbA1c at follow-up. Psychologically informed self-management was more heterogeneous, but several RCTs were effective in reducing DD. Group interventions offered the greatest benefits across intervention designs.

Effects of advanced carbohydrate counting in patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review

AIM

Advanced carbohydrate counting, a systematic method for insulin bolus calculation, is recommended in the management of type 1 diabetes. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize all available evidence from randomized and observational studies of the effects of advanced carbohydrate counting on glycaemic control (HbA(1c)), psychosocial measures, weight and hypoglycaemic events in patients of all age groups with type 1 diabetes on a basal-bolus insulin regimen.

METHODS

An electronic search of Scopus, MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library conducted in January 2013 identified 27 relevant articles. Six were randomized controlled trials and 21 were observational studies. Large heterogeneity existed across studies with regard to study design and patient populations. Reporting of statistical measures was insufficient to serve as a basis for a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, the studies demonstrated a positive trend in change in HbA(1c) after introduction of advanced carbohydrate counting. Reductions in HbA(1c) ranged from 0.0 to 13 mmol/mol (0.0-1.2%). Most psychosocial measures improved; however, only few improvements were considered clinically relevant. Both weight gain and reduction were registered, but most studies found no significant weight changes. The majority of studies assessing the incidence of hypoglycaemic events found a significant reduction in the event rate and none reported an increase in the incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the currently available literature does not provide sufficient evidence to definitively determine the effects of advanced carbohydrate counting on HbA(1c), psychosocial measures, weight or hypoglycaemic events. Nevertheless, the method still appears preferable to other insulin dosing procedures, which justifies continued use and inclusion of advanced carbohydrate counting in clinical guidelines.