Supporting care for suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus in general practice with a clinical decision support system: a mixed methods pilot cluster randomised trial

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

METHODS

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

RESULTS

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

CONCLUSION

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Implementing a Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitor Module With a Software Tool (Future Health Today): Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Primary care plays a key role in the management of type 2 diabetes. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been demonstrated to reduce hospitalization and cardiac and renal complications. Tools that optimize management, including appropriate prescribing, are a priority for treating chronic diseases. Future Health Today (FHT) is software that facilitates clinical decision support and quality improvement. FHT applies algorithms to data stored in electronic medical records in general practice to identify patients who are at risk of a chronic disease or who have a chronic disease that may benefit from intensification of management. The platform continues to evolve because of rigorous evaluation, continuous improvement, and expansion of the conditions hosted on the platform. FHT currently displays recommendations for the identification and management of chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer risk. A new module will be introduced to FHT focusing on SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney diseases, cardiovascular diseases, or risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to explore the barriers and enablers to the implementation of an SGLT2 inhibitor module within the Future Health Today software.

METHODS

Clinic staff were recruited to participate in interviews on their experience in their use of a tool to improve prescribing behavior for SGLT2 inhibitors. Thematic analysis was guided by Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory.

RESULTS

In total, 16 interviews were completed. Identified enablers of use included workflow alignment, clinical appropriateness, and active delivery of the module. Key barriers to use were competing priorities, staff engagement, and knowledge of the clinical topic.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a recognized benefit to the use of a clinical decision support tool to support type 2 diabetes management, but barriers were identified that impeded the usability and actionability of the module. Successful and effective implementation of this tool could support the optimization of patient management of type 2 diabetes in primary care.

Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions

Background

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

Methods

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

Results

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

Conclusion

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Applications of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Diabetes Care: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Providing comprehensive and individualized diabetes care remains a significant challenge in the face of the increasing complexity of diabetes management and a lack of specialized endocrinologists to support diabetes care. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are progressively being used to improve diabetes care, while many health care providers lack awareness and knowledge about CDSSs in diabetes care. A comprehensive analysis of the applications of CDSSs in diabetes care is still lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to summarize the research landscape, clinical applications, and impact on both patients and physicians of CDSSs in diabetes care.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review following the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in 7 electronic databases to identify the clinical applications of CDSSs in diabetes care up to June 30, 2022. Additional searches were conducted for conference abstracts from the period of 2021-2022. Two researchers independently performed the screening and data charting processes.

RESULTS

Of 11,569 retrieved studies, 85 (0.7%) were included for analysis. Research interest is growing in this field, with 45 (53%) of the 85 studies published in the past 5 years. Among the 58 (68%) out of 85 studies disclosing the underlying decision-making mechanism, most CDSSs (44/58, 76%) were knowledge based, while the number of non-knowledge-based systems has been increasing in recent years. Among the 81 (95%) out of 85 studies disclosing application scenarios, the majority of CDSSs were used for treatment recommendation (63/81, 78%). Among the 39 (46%) out of 85 studies disclosing physician user types, primary care physicians (20/39, 51%) were the most common, followed by endocrinologists (15/39, 39%) and nonendocrinology specialists (8/39, 21%). CDSSs significantly improved patients' blood glucose, blood pressure, and lipid profiles in 71% (45/63), 67% (12/18), and 38% (8/21) of the studies, respectively, with no increase in the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

CDSSs are both effective and safe in improving diabetes care, implying that they could be a potentially reliable assistant in diabetes care, especially for physicians with limited experience and patients with limited access to medical resources.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.37766/inplasy2022.9.0061.

21st century (clinical) decision support in nursing and allied healthcare. Developing a learning health system: a reasoned design of a theoretical framework

In this paper, we present a framework for developing a Learning Health System (LHS) to provide means to a computerized clinical decision support system for allied healthcare and/or nursing professionals. LHSs are well suited to transform healthcare systems in a mission-oriented approach, and is being adopted by an increasing number of countries. Our theoretical framework provides a blueprint for organizing such a transformation with help of evidence based state of the art methodologies and techniques to eventually optimize personalized health and healthcare. Learning via health information technologies using LHS enables users to learn both individually and collectively, and independent of their location. These developments demand healthcare innovations beyond a disease focused orientation since clinical decision making in allied healthcare and nursing is mainly based on aspects of individuals' functioning, wellbeing and (dis)abilities. Developing LHSs depends heavily on intertwined social and technological innovation, and research and development. Crucial factors may be the transformation of the Internet of Things into the Internet of FAIR data & services. However, Electronic Health Record (EHR) data is in up to 80% unstructured including free text narratives and stored in various inaccessible data warehouses. Enabling the use of data as a driver for learning is challenged by interoperability and reusability.To address technical needs, key enabling technologies are suitable to convert relevant health data into machine actionable data and to develop algorithms for computerized decision support. To enable data conversions, existing classification and terminology systems serve as definition providers for natural language processing through (un)supervised learning.To facilitate clinical reasoning and personalized healthcare using LHSs, the development of personomics and functionomics are useful in allied healthcare and nursing. Developing these omics will be determined via text and data mining. This will focus on the relationships between social, psychological, cultural, behavioral and economic determinants, and human functioning.Furthermore, multiparty collaboration is crucial to develop LHSs, and man-machine interaction studies are required to develop a functional design and prototype. During development, validation and maintenance of the LHS continuous attention for challenges like data-drift, ethical, technical and practical implementation difficulties is required.

Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes

BACKGROUND

There is a large body of evidence evaluating quality improvement (QI) programmes to improve care for adults living with diabetes. These programmes are often comprised of multiple QI strategies, which may be implemented in various combinations. Decision-makers planning to implement or evaluate a new QI programme, or both, need reliable evidence on the relative effectiveness of different QI strategies (individually and in combination) for different patient populations.

OBJECTIVES

To update existing systematic reviews of diabetes QI programmes and apply novel meta-analytical techniques to estimate the effectiveness of QI strategies (individually and in combination) on diabetes quality of care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL) and trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to 4 June 2019. We conducted a top-up search to 23 September 2021; we screened these search results and 42 studies meeting our eligibility criteria are available in the awaiting classification section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that assessed a QI programme to improve care in outpatient settings for people living with diabetes. QI programmes needed to evaluate at least one system- or provider-targeted QI strategy alone or in combination with a patient-targeted strategy. - System-targeted: case management (CM); team changes (TC); electronic patient registry (EPR); facilitated relay of clinical information (FR); continuous quality improvement (CQI). - Provider-targeted: audit and feedback (AF); clinician education (CE); clinician reminders (CR); financial incentives (FI). - Patient-targeted: patient education (PE); promotion of self-management (PSM); patient reminders (PR). Patient-targeted QI strategies needed to occur with a minimum of one provider or system-targeted strategy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We dual-screened search results and abstracted data on study design, study population and QI strategies. We assessed the impact of the programmes on 13 measures of diabetes care, including: glycaemic control (e.g. mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)); cardiovascular risk factor management (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), proportion of people living with diabetes that quit smoking or receiving cardiovascular medications); and screening/prevention of microvascular complications (e.g. proportion of patients receiving retinopathy or foot screening); and harms (e.g. proportion of patients experiencing adverse hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia). We modelled the association of each QI strategy with outcomes using a series of hierarchical multivariable meta-regression models in a Bayesian framework. The previous version of this review identified that different strategies were more or less effective depending on baseline levels of outcomes. To explore this further, we extended the main additive model for continuous outcomes (HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C) to include an interaction term between each strategy and average baseline risk for each study (baseline thresholds were based on a data-driven approach; we used the median of all baseline values reported in the trials). Based on model diagnostics, the baseline interaction models for HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C performed better than the main model and are therefore presented as the primary analyses for these outcomes. Based on the model results, we qualitatively ordered each QI strategy within three tiers (Top, Middle, Bottom) based on its magnitude of effect relative to the other QI strategies, where 'Top' indicates that the QI strategy was likely one of the most effective strategies for that specific outcome. Secondary analyses explored the sensitivity of results to choices in model specification and priors.  Additional information about the methods and results of the review are available as Appendices in an online repository. This review will be maintained as a living systematic review; we will update our syntheses as more data become available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 553 trials (428 patient-randomised and 125 cluster-randomised trials), including a total of 412,161 participants. Of the included studies, 66% involved people living with type 2 diabetes only. Participants were 50% female and the median age of participants was 58.4 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 12.5 months. HbA1c was the commonest reported outcome; screening outcomes and outcomes related to cardiovascular medications, smoking and harms were reported infrequently. The most frequently evaluated QI strategies across all study arms were PE, PSM and CM, while the least frequently evaluated QI strategies included AF, FI and CQI. Our confidence in the evidence is limited due to a lack of information on how studies were conducted.  Four QI strategies (CM, TC, PE, PSM) were consistently identified as 'Top' across the majority of outcomes. All QI strategies were ranked as 'Top' for at least one key outcome. The majority of effects of individual QI strategies were modest, but when used in combination could result in meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. The median number of QI strategies in multicomponent QI programmes was three.  Combinations of the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to the below effects:  - PR + PSM + CE: decrease in HbA1c by 0.41% (credibility interval (CrI) -0.61 to -0.22) when baseline HbA1c < 8.3%; - CM + PE + EPR: decrease in HbA1c by 0.62% (CrI -0.84 to -0.39) when baseline HbA1c > 8.3%;  - PE + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 2.14 mmHg (CrI -3.80 to -0.52) when baseline SBP < 136 mmHg; - CM + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 4.39 mmHg (CrI -6.20 to -2.56) when baseline SBP > 136 mmHg;  - TC + PE + CM: LDL-C lowering of 5.73 mg/dL (CrI -7.93 to -3.61) when baseline LDL < 107 mg/dL; - TC + CM + CR: LDL-C lowering by 5.52 mg/dL (CrI -9.24 to -1.89) when baseline LDL > 107 mg/dL. Assuming a baseline screening rate of 50%, the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to an absolute improvement of 33% in retinopathy screening (PE + PR + TC) and 38% absolute increase in foot screening (PE + TC + Other).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant body of evidence about QI programmes to improve the management of diabetes. Multicomponent QI programmes for diabetes care (comprised of effective QI strategies) may achieve meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. For health system decision-makers, the evidence summarised in this review can be used to identify strategies to include in QI programmes. For researchers, this synthesis identifies higher-priority QI strategies to examine in further research regarding how to optimise their evaluation and effects. We will maintain this as a living systematic review.

Intensifying approaches to address clinical inertia among cardiovascular disease risk factors: A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

Clinical inertia, the absence of treatment initiation or intensification for patients not achieving evidence-based therapeutic goals, is a primary contributor to poor clinical outcomes. Effectively combating clinical inertia requires coordinated action on the part of multiple representatives including patients, clinicians, health systems, and the pharmaceutical industry. Despite intervention attempts by these representatives, barriers to overcoming clinical inertia in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor control remain.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative literature review to identify individual-level and multifactorial interventions that have been successful in addressing clinical inertia.

RESULTS

Effective interventions included dynamic forms of patient and clinician education, monitoring of real-time patient data to facilitate shared decision-making, or a combination of these approaches. Based on findings, we describe three possible multi-level approaches to counter clinical inertia - a collaborative approach to clinician training, use of a population health manager, and use of electronic monitoring and reminder devices.

CONCLUSION

To reduce clinical inertia and achieve optimal CVD risk factor control, interventions should consider the role of multiple representatives, be feasible for implementation in healthcare systems, and be flexible for an individual patient's adherence needs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Representatives (e.g., patients, clinicians, health systems, and the pharmaceutical industry) could consider approaches to identify and monitor non-adherence to address clinical inertia.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring With Low-Carbohydrate Nutritional Coaching to Improve Type 2 Diabetes Control: Randomized Quality Improvement Program

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, with adverse health consequences largely related to hyperglycemia. Despite clinical practice guideline recommendations, effective pharmacotherapy, and interventions to support patients and providers, up to 60% of patients diagnosed with T2DM are estimated to have hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) levels above the recommended targets owing to multilevel barriers hindering optimal glycemic control.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare changes in HbA_1c levels among patients with suboptimally controlled T2DM who were offered the opportunity to use an intermittently viewed continuous glucose monitor and receive personalized low-carbohydrate nutrition counseling (<100 g/day) versus those who received usual care (UC).

METHODS

This was a 12-month, pragmatic, randomized quality improvement program. All adult patients with T2DM who received primary care at a university-affiliated primary care clinic (N=1584) were randomized to either the UC or the enhanced care (EC) group. Within each program arm, we identified individuals with HbA_1c >7.5% (58 mmol/mol) who were medically eligible for tighter glycemic control, and we defined these subgroups as UC-high risk (UC-HR) or EC-HR. UC-HR participants (n=197) received routine primary care. EC-HR participants (n=185) were invited to use an intermittently viewed continuous glucose monitor and receive low-carbohydrate nutrition counseling. The primary outcome was mean change in HbA_1c levels from baseline to 12 months using an intention-to-treat difference-in-differences analysis comparing EC-HR with UC-HR groups. We conducted follow-up semistructured interviews to understand EC-HR participant experiences with the intervention.

RESULTS

HbA_1c decreased by 0.41% (4.5 mmol/mol; P=.04) more from baseline to 12 months among participants in the EC-HR group than among those in UC-HR; however, only 61 (32.9%) of 185 EC-HR participants engaged in the program. Among the EC-HR participants who wore continuous glucose monitors (61/185, 32.9%), HbA_1c was 1.1% lower at 12 months compared with baseline (P<.001). Interviews revealed themes related to EC-HR participants' program engagement and continuous glucose monitor use.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with suboptimally controlled T2DM, a combined approach that includes continuous glucose monitoring and low-carbohydrate nutrition counseling can improve glycemic control compared with the standard of care.

Barriers and facilitators influencing medication-related CDSS acceptance according to clinicians: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A medication-related Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) is an application that analyzes patient data to provide assistance in medication-related care processes. Despite its potential to improve the clinical decision-making process, evidence shows that clinicians do not always use CDSSs in such a way that their potential can be fully realized. This systematic literature review provides an overview of frequently-reported barriers and facilitators for acceptance of medication-related CDSS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Search terms and MeSH headings were developed in collaboration with a librarian, and database searches were conducted in Medline, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science Conference Proceedings. After screening 5404 records and 140 full papers, 63 articles were included in this review. Quality assessment was performed for all 63 included articles. The identified barriers and facilitators are categorized within the Human, Organization, Technology fit (HOT-fit) model.

RESULTS

A total of 327 barriers and 291 facilitators were identified. Results show that factors most often reported were related to (a lack of) usefulness and relevance of information, and ease of use and efficiency of the system.

DISCUSSION

This review provides a valuable insight into a broad range of barriers and facilitators for using a medication-related CDSS as perceived by clinicians. The results can be used as a stepping stone in future studies developing medication-related CDSSs.