3-year follow-up of clinical and behavioral improvements following a multifaceted diabetes care intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial

Intersectoral health interventions to improve the well-being of people living with type 2 diabetes: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Intersectoral collaboration is a collaborative approach between the health sectors and other sectors to address the interdependent nature of the social determinants of health associated with chronic diseases such as diabetes. This scoping review aims to identify intersectoral health interventions implemented in primary care and community settings to improve the well-being and health of people living with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol is developed by the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework for scoping reviews and the Levac et al methodological enhancement. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, grey literature and the reference list of key studies will be searched to identify any study, published between 2000 and 2023, related to the concepts of intersectorality, diabetes and primary/community care. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles/abstracts, full-text studies and grey literature for inclusion and extract data. Eligible interventions will be classified by sector of action proposed by the Social Determinants of Health Map and the conceptual framework for people-centred and integrated health services and further sorted according to the actors involved. This work started in September 2023 and will take approximately 10 months to be completed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and presentations to stakeholders.

Towards an integrated type 1 diabetes management in low-resource settings: barriers faced by patients and their caregivers in healthcare facilities in Ghana

BACKGROUND

In Low-Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), young people living with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) face structural barriers which undermine adequate T1DM management and lead to poor health outcomes. However, research on the barriers faced by young people living with T1DM have mostly focused on patient factors, neglecting concerns regarding plausible barriers that may exist at the point of healthcare service delivery.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to explore barriers faced by young people living with T1DM and their caregivers at the point of healthcare service delivery.

METHODS

Data were drawn from a qualitative research in southern Ghana. The research was underpinned by a phenomenological study design. Data were collected from 28 young people living with T1DM, 12 caregivers, and six healthcare providers using semi-structured interview guides. The data were collected at home, hospital, and support group centres via face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, and videoconferencing. Thematic and framework analyses were done using CAQDAS (QSR NVivo 14).

RESULTS

Eight key barriers were identified. These were: shortage of insulin and management logistics; healthcare provider knowledge gaps; lack of T1DM care continuity; poor healthcare provider-caregiver interactions; lack of specialists' care; sharing of physical space with adult patients; long waiting time; and outdated treatment plans. The multiple barriers identified suggest the need for an integrated model of T1DM to improve its care delivery in low-resource settings. We adapted the Chronic Care Model (CCM) to develop an Integrated Healthcare for T1DM management in low-resource settings.

CONCLUSION

Young people living with T1DM, and their caregivers encountered multiple healthcare barriers in both in-patient and outpatient healthcare facilities. The results highlight important intervention areas which must be addressed/improved to optimise T1DM care, as well as call for the implementation of a proposed integrated approach to T1DM care in low-resource settings.

5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

1. Improving Care and Promoting Health in Populations: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at https://professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

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.

The Rationale and Logistics for Incorporating Community Health Workers Into the Multidisciplinary Team

Community Health Workers (CHWs) have shown value in diabetes care. CHWs are often the individuals who provide behavioral lifestyle intervention to underserved communities and are often the first to assist patients in gaining appropriate access to care. As trusted members of their communities, they have the ability to significantly impact psychosocial and biomedical outcomes, making them important members of the behavioral medicine team. However, lack of recognition of CHWs within multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) gives rise to the issue of the underutilization of their services. Therefore, barriers to including CHWs in MDTs including standardized training and strategies to overcome these are discussed.

The current diabetes education experience: Findings of a cross-sectional survey of adults with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To survey persons with type 2 diabetes (PWD) on their experiences with diabetes education to better understand what it means when a PWD says they have "had diabetes education."

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study among a convenience sample of adult PWD receiving primary care and/or diabetes self-management education and support in a mid-Atlantic regional US healthcare system. Descriptive, bivariate, and regression analyses were used to describe and explore the diabetes education experience.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 498) were majority female, African American, and non-Hispanic. Half reported having "had diabetes education." Of those, 44% had only one session. Education was most often provided in clinical settings by a dietitian (68%) or doctor (51%), in one-on-one (70%) sessions. While most participants reported receiving core diabetes knowledge, fewer reported education on topics that are not related to their daily routine, such as what to do about diabetes medications when sick.

CONCLUSION

The self-reported diabetes education experience varies in content, modality, setting, and education provider. Education receipt is low, and for those who receive education, the amount is low.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The diabetes education experience may fall short of the comprehensive US National Standards-recommended process. Innovative strategies are needed to address these gaps.

5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

1. Improving Care and Promoting Health in Populations: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Effectiveness of Therapeutic Patient Education Interventions in Obesity and Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and obesity account for the highest burden of non-communicable diseases. There is increasing evidence showing therapeutic patient education (TPE) as a clinically and cost-effective solution to improve biomedical and psychosocial outcomes among people with DM and obesity. The present systematic review and meta-analysis present a critical synthesis of the development of TPE interventions for DM and obesity and the efficacy of these interventions across a range of biomedical, psychosocial and psychological outcomes. A total of 54 of these RCTs were identified among patients with obesity and diabetes and were thus qualitatively synthesized. Out of these, 47 were included in the quantitative synthesis. There was substantial heterogeneity in the reporting of these outcomes (I2 = 88.35%, Q = 317.64), with a significant improvement noted in serum HbA1c levels (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.272, 95% CI: 0.118 to 0.525, n = 7360) and body weight (SMD = 0.526, 95% CI: 0.205 to 0.846, n = 1082) in the intervention group. The effect sizes were comparable across interventions delivered by different modes and delivery agents. These interventions can be delivered by allied health staff, doctors or electronically as self-help programs, with similar effectiveness (p < 0.001). These interventions should be implemented in healthcare and community settings to improve the health outcomes in patients suffering from obesity and DM.

Effectiveness of Integrated Diabetes Care Interventions Involving Diabetes Specialists Working in Primary and Community Care Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction:

Evidence that integrated diabetes care interventions can substantially improve clinical outcomes is mixed. However, previous systematic reviews have not focussed on clinical effectiveness where the endocrinologist was actively involved in guiding diabetes management.

Methods:

We searched EMBASE, COCHRANE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Google Scholar databases and grey literature published in English language up to 25 January 2021. Reviewed articles included Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and pre-post studies testing the effectiveness on clinical outcomes after ≥6 months intervention in non-pregnant adults (age ≥ 18 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Two reviewers independently extracted data and completed a risk of bias assessment. Appropriate meta-analyses for each outcome from RCTs and pre-post studies were performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic and Cochran’s Q and publication bias assessed using Doi plots. Studies were not pooled to estimate the cost-effectiveness as the cost outcomes were not comparable across trials/studies.

Results:

We reviewed 4 RCTs and 12 pre-post studies. The integrated care model of diabetes specialists working with primary care health professionals had a positive impact on HbA1c in both RCTs and pre-post studies and on systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol and weight in pre-post studies. In the RCTs, interventions reduced HbA1c (–0.10% [–0.15 to –0.05]) (–1.1 mmol/mol [–1.6 to –0.5]), versus control. Pre-post studies demonstrated improvements in HbA1c (–0.77% [–1.12 to –0.42]) (–8.4 mmol/mol [–12.2 to –4.6]), systolic blood pressure (–3.30 mmHg [–5.16 to –1.44]), diastolic blood pressure (–3.61 mmHg [–4.82 to –2.39]), total cholesterol (–0.33 mmol/L [–0.52 to –0.14]) and weight (–2.53 kg [–3.86 to –1.19]). In a pre-post study with no control group only 4% patients experienced hypoglycaemia after one year of intervention compared to baseline.

Conclusions:

Integrated interventions with an active endocrinologist involvement can result in modest improvements in HbA1c, blood pressure and weight management. Although the improvements per clinical outcome are modest, there is possible net improvements at a holistic level.

Diabetes Education and Support Tele-Visit Needs Differ in Duration, Content, and Satisfaction in Older Versus Younger Adults

BACKGROUND

Diabetes education and support are critical components of diabetes care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when telemedicine took the place of in-person visits, remote Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist (CDCES) services were offered to address diabetes education and support. Specific needs for older adults, including the time required to provide education and support remotely, have not been previously reported.

METHODS

Adults with diabetes (primarily insulin-requiring) were referred to remote CDCESs. Utilization was individualized based on patient needs and preferences. Topics discussed, patient satisfaction, and time spent in each tele-visit were evaluated by diabetes type, age, sex, insurance type, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), pump, and continuous glucose monitor (CGM) usage. t-Tests, one-way analysis of variance, and Pearson correlations were employed as appropriate.

RESULTS

Adults (n = 982; mean age 48.4 years, 41.0% age ≥55 years) with type 1 diabetes (n = 846) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 136, 86.0% insulin-treated), 50.8% female; 19.0% Medicaid, 29.1% Medicare, 48.9% private insurance; mean HbA1c 8.4% (standard deviation 1.9); and 46.6% pump and 64.5% CGM users had 2203 tele-visits with remote CDCESs over 5 months. Of those referred, 272 (21.7%) could not be reached or did not receive education/support. Older age (≥55 years), compared with 36-54 year olds and 18-35 year olds, respectively, was associated with more tele-visits (mean 2.6 vs. 2.2 and 1.8) and more time/tele-visits (mean 20.4 min vs. 16.5 min and 14.8 min; p < 0.001) as was coverage with Medicare (mean 2.8 visits) versus private insurance (mean 2.0 visits; p < 0.001) and lower participant satisfaction. The total mean time spent with remote CDCESs was 53.1, 37.4, and 26.2 min for participants aged ≥55, 36-54, and 18-35 years, respectively. During remote tele-visits, the most frequently discussed topics per participant were CGM and insulin pump use (73.4% and 49.7%). After adjustment for sex and diabetes type, older age was associated with lack of access to a computer, tablet, smartphone, or internet (p < 0.001), and need for more education related to CGM (p < 0.001), medications (p = 0.015), hypoglycemia (p = 0.044), and hyperglycemia (p = 0.048).

DISCUSSION

Most remote CDCES tele-visits were successfully completed. Older adults/those with Medicare required more time to fulfill educational needs. Although 85.7% of individual sessions lasted <30 min, which does not meet current Medicare requirements for reimbursement, multiple visits were common with a total time of >50 min for most older participants. This suggests that new reimbursement models are needed. Education/support needs of insulin-treated older adults should be a focus of future studies.

5. Facilitating Behavior Change and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

1. Improving Care and Promoting Health in Populations: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Effects of physician's diabetes self-management education using Japan Association of Diabetes Education and Care Diabetes Education Card System Program and a self-monitoring of blood glucose readings analyzer in individuals with type 2 diabetes: An exploratory, open-labeled, prospective randomized clinical trial

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

This 6-month, single-center, prospective, open-labeled, randomized trial was designed to investigate whether physicians' diabetes self-management education using an education tool developed by the Japan Association of Diabetes Education and Care and a self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) analyzer improves glycemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin and SMBG.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants were randomized into intervention (I) and control (C) groups. Both groups received physicians' diabetes self-management education at each hospital visit, whereas the Japan Association of Diabetes Education and Care education tool and the SMBG readings analyzer was used in group I, but not group C. All participants filled out a diabetes treatment-related quality of life form and an original questionnaire on SMBG use with five questions (Q1-Q5) before and after the study period.

RESULTS

A total of 76 individuals were recruited and randomized. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was significantly improved during the study period in group I, whereas no significant change was observed in group C. The change in HbA1c was greater in group I, although it did not reach statistical significance. The diabetes treatment-related quality of life total score was not changed in either group. Interestingly, the score of Q1 ("How important is SMBG to you?") in the SMBG questionnaire was unchanged in group I, whereas it was significantly decreased in group C. HbA1c change was independently associated with changes in insulin dose and SMBG Q1 score.

CONCLUSION

Greater HbA1c-lowering by physicians' diabetes self-management education using the Japan Association of Diabetes Education and Care education tool and SMBG analyzer in individuals with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin and SMBG was suggested, but not confirmed.

Strategies for overcoming therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To systematically investigate the effect of interventions to overcome therapeutic inertia on glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We electronically searched for randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies published between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2019 evaluating the effect of interventions on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) control. Characteristics of included studies and HbA1c difference between intervention and control arms (main outcome) were extracted. Interventions were grouped as: care management and patient education; nurse or certified diabetes educator (CDE); pharmacist; or physician-based.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies including 22 243 individuals were combined in nonlinear random-effects meta-regressions; the median (range) duration of intervention was 1 year (0.9 to 36 months). Compared to the control arm, HbA1c reduction ranged from: -17.7 mmol/mol (-1.62%) to -4.4 mmol/mol (-0.40%) for nurse- or CDE-based interventions; -13.1 mmol/mol (-1.20%) to 3.3 mmol/mol (0.30%) for care management and patient education interventions; -9.8 mmol/mol (-0.90%) to -6.6 mmol/mol (-0.60%) for pharmacist-based interventions; and -4.4 mmol/mol (-0.40%) to 2.8 mmol/mol (0.26%) for physician-based interventions. Across the included studies, a reduction in HbA1c was observed only during the first year (6 months: -4.2 mmol/mol, 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.2, -2.2 [-0.38%, 95% CI -0.56, -0.20]; 1 year: -1.6 mmol/mol, 95% CI -3.3, 0.1 [-0.15%, 95% CI -0.30, 0.01]) and in individuals with preintervention HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The most effective approaches to mitigating therapeutic inertia and improving HbA1c were those that empower nonphysician providers such as pharmacists, nurses and diabetes educators to initiate and intensify treatment independently, supported by appropriate guidelines.

Empowerment among adult patients with type 2 diabetes: age differentials in relation to person-centred primary care, community resources, social support and other life-contextual circumstances

BACKGROUND

Rising prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D), also among younger adults, constitutes a growing public health challenge. According to the person-centred Chronic Care Model, proactive care and self-management support in combination with community resources enhance quality of healthcare and health outcomes for patients with T2D. However, research is scarce concerning the importance of person-centred care and community resources for such outcomes as empowerment, and the relative impact of various patient support sources for empowerment is not known. Moreover, little is known about the association of age with these variables in this patient-group. This study, carried out among patients with T2D, examined in three age-groups (27-54, 55-64 and 65-75 years) whether person-centred care and diabetes-related social support, including community support and possibilities to influence community health issues, are associated with patient empowerment, when considering possible confounding factors, such as other quality of care indicators and psychosocial wellbeing. We also explored age differentials in empowerment and in the proposed correlates of empowerment.

METHOD

Individuals from a register-based sample with T2D participated in a cross-sectional survey (participation 56%, n = 2866). Data were analysed by descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Respondents in the youngest age-group were more likely to have low empowerment scores, less continuity of care, and lower wellbeing than the other age-groups, and to perceive less social support, but a higher level of person-centred care than the oldest group. Community support, including possibilities to influence community health issues, was independently and consistently associated with high empowerment in all three age-groups, as was person-centred care in the two older age-groups. Community support was the social support variable with the strongest association with empowerment across age-groups. Moreover, vitality was positively and diabetes-related distress negatively associated with high empowerment in all age-groups, whereas continuity of care, i.e. having a family/regular nurse, was independently associated in the youngest age-group only.

CONCLUSION

Person-centred care and community support, including possibilities to influence community health issues, supports empowerment among adults with T2D. Findings suggest that age is related to most correlates of empowerment, and that younger adults with T2D have specific healthcare needs.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends.

METHODS

The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision.

RESULTS

Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

5. Facilitating Behavior Change and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

1. Improving Care and Promoting Health in Populations: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Impact of Quality Improvement (QI) Program on 5-Year Risk of Diabetes-Related Complications: A Simulation Study

OBJECTIVE

We successfully implemented the American Diabetes Association's (ADA) Diabetes INSIDE (INspiring System Improvement with Data-Driven Excellence) quality improvement (QI) program at a university hospital and safety-net health system (Tulane and Parkland), focused on system-wide improvement in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c >8.0% [64 mmol/mol]). In this study, we estimated the 5-year risk reduction in complications and mortality associated with the QI program.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The QI implementation period was 1 year, followed by the postintervention period of 6 months to evaluate the impact of QI on clinical measures. We measured the differences between the baseline and postintervention clinical outcomes in 2,429 individuals with HbA1c >8% (64 mmol/mol) at baseline and used the Building, Relating, Assessing, and Validating Outcomes (BRAVO) diabetes model to project the 5-year risk reduction of diabetes-related complications under the assumption that intervention benefits persist over time. An alternative assumption that intervention benefits diminish by 30% every year was also tested.

RESULTS

The QI program was associated with reductions in HbA1c (-0.84%) and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) (-5.94 mg/dL) among individuals with HbA1c level >8.0% (64 mmol/mol), with greater reduction in HbA1c (-1.67%) and LDL-C (-6.81 mg/dL) among those with HbA1c level >9.5% at baseline (all P < 0.05). The implementation of the Diabetes INSIDE QI program was associated with 5-year risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (relative risk [RR] 0.78 [95% CI 0.75-0.81]) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.83 [95% CI 0.82-0.85]) among individuals with baseline HbA1c level >8.0% (64 mmol/mol), and MACE (RR 0.60 [95% CI 0.56-0.65]) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.61 [95% CI 0.59-0.64]) among individuals with baseline HbA1c level >9.5% (80 mmol/mol). Sensitivity analysis also identified a substantially lower risk of diabetes-related complications and mortality associated with the QI program.

CONCLUSIONS

Our modeling results suggest that the ADA's Diabetes INSIDE QI program would benefit the patients and population by substantially reducing the 5-year risk of complications and mortality in individuals with diabetes.

Assessing the Effect of Quality-Improvement Strategies for Organization of Care in Type 2 Diabetes Outcomes in Adults: Aim-Strait

OBJECTIVES

To observe the effect of an organization-of-care improvement process on the achievement of therapeutic goals for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This single-arm cohort study analyzed the electronic medical records of patients with T2DM in 5 primary care practices in Ontario, Canada, before and 2 years after implementation of an individualized quality-improvement program. The primary outcome was the change in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) between baseline and follow up, with secondary analyses including change in other metabolic parameters, medication patterns and clinic visits. Prespecified subgroup analysis of patients with baseline values above guideline therapeutic targets was performed.

RESULTS

In the overall population of 1,886 patients, A1C improved from 7.1% (baseline) to 7.0% (follow up) (p<0.001); low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) improved from 2.1 to 1.9 mmol/L (p<0.001); and diastolic blood pressure (BP) improved from 75 to 74 mmHg (p<0.001), with no significant change observed in systolic BP. Of those patients who were above guideline-recommended therapeutic targets at baseline, improvements were observed at follow-up: A1C 8.3±1.3% to 7.8±1.3% (p<0.001), LDL-C 2.9±0.7 mmol/L to 2.4±0.9 mmol/L (p<0.001), systolic BP 144±11 to 134±16 mmHg (p<0.001) and diastolic BP 80±10 to 75±11 mmHg (p<0.001), with the percentages of patients achieving target at follow up being 32% for A1C, 40% for LDL-C and 49% for systolic BP. Overall, 22% of patients achieved all 3 targets at baseline compared to 28% at follow up (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of an organization-of-care improvement program in primary care was associated with improved metabolic control, which was most pronounced in patients with baseline levels above guideline-recommended therapeutic targets.

5. Facilitating Behavior Change and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

1. Improving Care and Promoting Health in Populations: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends.

METHODS

The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision.

RESULTS

Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

Benefits and harms of intensive glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

Diabetes is a major and costly health concern worldwide, with high morbidity, disability, mortality, and impaired quality of life. The vast majority of people living with diabetes have type 2 diabetes. Historically, the main strategy to reduce complications of type 2 diabetes has been intensive glycemic control. However, the body of evidence shows no meaningful benefit of intensive (compared with moderate) glycemic control for microvascular and macrovascular outcomes important to patients, with the exception of reduced rates of non-fatal myocardial infarction. Intensive glycemic control does, however, increase the risk of severe hypoglycemia and incurs additional burden by way of polypharmacy, side effects, and cost. Additionally, data from cardiovascular outcomes trials showed that cardiovascular, kidney, and mortality outcomes may be improved with use of specific classes of glucose lowering drugs largely independently of their glycemic effects. Therefore, delivering evidence based, patient centered care to people with type 2 diabetes requires a paradigm shift and departure from the predominantly glucocentric view of diabetes management. Instead of prioritizing intensive glycemic control, the focus needs to be on ensuring access to adequate diabetes care, aligning glycemic targets to patients' goals and situations, minimizing short term and long term complications, reducing the burden of treatment, and improving quality of life.

1. Improving Care and Promoting Health in Populations: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Effectiveness of the Chronic Care Model in Type 2 Diabetes Management in a Community Health Service Center in China: A Group Randomized Experimental Study

OBJECTIVE

The Chronic Care Model, based on core elements of team-centered care in chronic diseases, has widely been accepted. This study was aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the Chronic Care Model in type 2 diabetes management.

METHODS

A group randomized experimental study was conducted. Twelve communities of the Zhaohui Community Health Service Center in Hangzhou, China, were randomly assigned into an intervention group (n = 6) receiving the Chronic Care Model-based intervention and a control group (n = 6) receiving conventional care. A total of three hundred patients, twenty-five for each community, aged ≥18 years with type 2 diabetes for at least 1-year duration, were recruited. Data of health behaviors, clinical outcomes, and health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36-item questionnaire) were collected before and after a 9-month intervention and analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, chi-square test, binary logistic regression, and linear mixed regression. A total of 258 patients (134 in intervention and 124 in control) who completed the baseline and follow-up evaluations and the entire intervention were included in the final analyses.

RESULTS

Health behaviors such as drinking habit (OR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.75), physical activity (OR = 2.92, 95% CI: 1.18, 7.25), and diet habit (OR = 4.30, 95% CI: 1.49, 12.43) were improved. The intervention group had a remarkable reduction in glycated hemoglobin (from 7.17% to 6.60%, P < 0.001). The quality of life score changes of the role limitation due to physical problems (mean = 9.97, 95% CI: 3.33, 16.60), social functioning (mean = 6.50, 95% CI: 2.37, 10.64), role limitation due to emotional problems (mean = 8.06, 95% CI: 2.15, 13.96), and physical component summary score (mean = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.22, 5.39) were improved in the intervention group compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION

The Chronic Care Model-based intervention helped improve some health behaviors, clinical outcomes, and quality of life of type 2 diabetes patients in China in a short term.

5. Lifestyle Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends.

METHODS

The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision.

RESULTS

Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

The role of the chronic care model in promoting the management of the patient with rare liver disease

INTRODUCTION

The chronic care model (CCM) provides a holistic approach for managing chronic illnesses. Patients with rare liver diseases (RLD) have complex needs, impaired quality of life and often life-threatening complications. Most RLD meet the criteria for a long-term chronic condition and should be viewed through the prism of CCM. We aimed to ascertain whether the CCM has been considered for the frequently-encountered RLD.

METHODS

MEDLINE®/PubMed®/Cochrane/EMBASE were searched to identify publications relating to the use of the CCM for the management of six RLD. We identified 33 articles eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

Six, eleven, one, thirteen, two and zero studies, discussed individual components of the CCM for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), primary sclerosing cirrhosis (PSC), Wilsons disease (WD), alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (A1AD) and lysosomal acid lipase deficiency (LALd) respectively. We have not identified studies using the full CCM for any of the aforementioned RLD.

DISCUSSION

Unlike in common chronic conditions e.g. diabetes, there has been limited consideration of the use of CCM (or its components) for the management of RLD. This may reflect a reluctance of the clinical community to view these diseases as chronic or lack of healthcare policy investment in rare diseases in general.

Outcomes at 18 Months From a Community Health Worker and Peer Leader Diabetes Self-Management Program for Latino Adults

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the effectiveness of a community health worker (CHW) diabetes self-management education (DSME) program, followed by two different approaches to maintain improvements in HbA_1c and other clinical and patient-centered outcomes over 18 months.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study randomized 222 Latino adults with type 2 diabetes and poor glycemic control from a federally qualified health center to 1) a CHW-led, 6-month DSME program or 2) enhanced usual care (EUC). After the 6-month program, participants randomized to the CHW-led DSME were further randomized to 1) 12 months of CHW-delivered monthly telephone outreach (CHW-only) or 2) 12 months of weekly group sessions delivered by peer leaders (PLs) with telephone outreach to those unable to attend (CHW+PL). The primary outcome was HbA_1c. Secondary outcomes were blood pressure, lipid levels, diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, understanding of diabetes self-management, and diabetes social support. Assessments were conducted at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months.

RESULTS

Participants in the CHW intervention at the 6-month follow-up had greater decreases in HbA_1c (-0.45% [95% CI -0.87, -0.03]; P < 0.05) and in diabetes distress (-0.3 points [95% CI -0.6, -0.03]; P < 0.05) compared with EUC. CHW+PL participants maintained HbA_1c improvements at 12 and 18 months, and CHW-only participants maintained improvements in diabetes distress at 12 and 18 months. CHW+PL participants also had significantly fewer depressive symptoms at 18 months compared with EUC (-2.2 points [95% CI -4.1, -0.3]; P < 0.05). Participants in CHW-led DSME had significant improvements in diabetes social support and in understanding of diabetes self-management at 6 months relative to EUC, but these intervention effects were not sustained at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a 6-month CHW intervention on key diabetes outcomes and of a volunteer PL program in sustaining key achieved gains. These are scalable models for health care centers in low-resource settings for achieving and maintaining improvements in key diabetes outcomes.

Patient Understanding of Hypoglycemia in Tertiary Referral Centers

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia is an important complication in the treatment of patients with diabetes. We surveyed the insight by patients with diabetes into hypoglycemia, their hypoglycemia avoidance behavior, and their level of worry regarding hypoglycemia.

METHODS

A survey of patients with diabetes, who had visited seven tertiary referral centers in Daegu or Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea, between June 2014 and June 2015, was conducted. The survey contained questions about personal history, symptoms, educational experience, self-management, and attitudes about hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Of 758 participants, 471 (62.1%) had experienced hypoglycemia, and 250 (32.9%) had experienced hypoglycemia at least once in the month immediately preceding the study. Two hundred and forty-two (31.8%) of the participants had received hypoglycemia education at least once, but only 148 (19.4%) knew the exact definition of hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemic symptoms identified by the participants were dizziness (55.0%), sweating (53.8%), and tremor (40.8%). They mostly chose candy (62.1%), chocolate (37.7%), or juice (36.8%) as food for recovering hypoglycemia. Participants who had experienced hypoglycemia had longer duration of diabetes and a higher proportion of insulin usage. The mean scores for hypoglycemia avoidance behavior and worry about hypoglycemia were 21.2±10.71 and 23.38±13.19, respectively. These scores tended to be higher for participants with higher than 8% of glycosylated hemoglobin, insulin use, and experience of emergency room visits.

CONCLUSION

Many patients had experienced hypoglycemia and worried about it. We recommend identifying patients that are anxious about hypoglycemia and educating them about what to do when they develop hypoglycemic symptoms, especially those who have a high risk of hypoglycemia.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends.

Methods

The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision.

Results

Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes.

Conclusion

Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

1. Improving Care and Promoting Health in Populations: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multi-disciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/content/clinical-practice-recommendations.

4. Lifestyle Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Quality of Care Improves for Patients with Diabetes in Medicare Shared Savings Accountable Care Organizations: Organizational Characteristics Associated with Performance

Accountable care organizations (ACOs), a primary care-centric delivery and payment model, aim to promote integrated population health, which may improve care for those with chronic conditions such as diabetes. Research has shown that, overall, the ACO model is effective at reducing costs, but there is substantial variation in how effective different types of ACOs are at impacting costs and improving care delivery. This study examines how ACO organizational characteristics - such as composition, staffing, care management, and experiences with health reform - were associated with quality of care delivered to patients with diabetes. Secondary data were analyzed retrospectively to examine Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs' performance on diabetes metrics in the first 2 years of ACO contracts. Ordinary least squares was used to analyze 162 MSSP ACOs with publicly available performance data and the National Survey of ACOs. ACOs improved performance significantly for patients with diabetes between contract years 1 and 2. In year 1, also having a private payer contract and an increased number of services within the ACO were positively associated with performance, while having a community health center or a hospital were negatively associated with performance. Better performance in year 1 was negatively associated with improved performance in year 2. This study found that ACOs substantively improved diabetes management within initial contract years. ACOs may need different types of support throughout their contracts to ensure continued improvements in performance.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

This article was copublished in Diabetes Care 2017;40:1409-1419 and The Diabetes Educator 2017;43:449-464 and is reprinted with permission. The previous version of this article, also copublished in Diabetes Care and The Diabetes Educator, can be found at Diabetes Care 2012;35:2393-2401 (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-1707).

A nurse-led education and cognitive behaviour therapy-based intervention among adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: A randomised controlled trial

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Diabetes mellitus is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and escalating health care costs. Research has consistently demonstrated the importance of glycaemic control in delaying the onset, and decreasing the incidence, of both the short-term and long-term complications of diabetes. Although glycaemic control is difficult to achieve and challenging to maintain, it is key to reducing negative disease outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine whether a nurse-led educational intervention alone or a nurse-led intervention using education and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) was effective in reducing hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c ) in people living with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes compared to usual care.

METHODS

Adults over the age of 18 years, with a confirmed diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and HbA_1c outside of the recommended range (4%-7%, 20-53 mmol/mol) for 12 months or more, were eligible to participate. Participants were randomised to either a nurse-led education intervention, a nurse-led education plus ACT intervention, or a usual care. One hundred and eighteen participants completed baseline data collection (N = 34 education group, N = 39 education plus ACT, N = 45 control group). An intention to treat analysis was used.

RESULTS

A statistically significant reduction in HbA_1c in the education intervention group was found (P = .011 [7.48, 8.14]). At 6 months, HbA_1c was reduced in both intervention groups (education group -0.21 and education and ACT group -0.04) and increased in the control group (+0.32). A positive change in HbA_1c (HbA_1c reduced) was noted in 50 participants overall. Twice as many participants in the intervention groups demonstrated an improvement as compared to the control group (56% of the education group, 51% education plus ACT, and 24% control group.

CONCLUSIONS

At 6 months post intervention, HbA_1c was reduced in both intervention groups with a greater reduction noted in the nurse-led education intervention.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

Purpose The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. Methods The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. Results Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. Conclusion Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

Diabetes self-management education reduces risk of all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetes self-management education is an essential part of diabetes care, but its impact on all-cause mortality risk of type 2 diabetes patients is unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to elucidate the impact of diabetes self-management education on all-cause mortality risk of type 2 diabetes patients was performed.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials were identified though literature search in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, conference abstracts, and reference lists. Only randomised controlled trials comparing diabetes self-management education with usual care in type 2 diabetes patients and reporting outcomes after a follow-up of at least 12 months were considered eligible. Risk ratios with 95 %CIs were pooled. This study was registered at PROSPERO with the number of CRD42016043911.

RESULTS

42 randomised controlled trials containing 13,017 participants were included. The mean time of follow-up was 1.5 years. There was no heterogeneity among those included studies (I ² = 0 %). Mortality occurred in 159 participants (2.3 %) in the diabetes self-management education group and in 187 (3.1 %) in the usual care group, and diabetes self-management education significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes patients (pooled risk ratios : 0.74, 95 %CI 0.60-0.90, P = 0.003; absolute risk difference: -0.8 %, 95 %CI -1.4 to -0.3). Both multidisciplinary team education and nurse-led education could significantly reduce mortality risk in type 2 diabetes patients, and the pooled risk ratios were 0.66 (95 %CI 0.46-0.96, P = 0.02; I ² = 0 %) and 0.64 (95 % CI 0.47- 0.88, P = 0.005; I ² = 0 %), respectively. Subgroup analyses of studies with longer duration of follow-up (≥1.5 years) or larger sample size (≥300) also found a significant effect of diabetes self-management education in reducing mortality risk among type 2 diabetes. Significant effect of diabetes self-management education in reducing mortality risk was also found in those patients receiving diabetes self-management education with contact hours more than 10 h (pooled risk ratio: 0.60, 95 %CI 0.44-0.82, P = 0.001; I ² = 0 %), those receiving repeated diabetes self-management education (pooled RR: 0.71, P = 0.001; I ² = 0 %), those receiving diabetes self-management education using structured curriculum (pooled risk ratio: 0.72, P = 0.01; I ² = 0 %) and those receiving diabetes self-management education using in-person communication (pooled risk ratio: 0.75, P = 0.02; I ² = 0 %). The quality of evidence for the effect of diabetes self-management education in reducing all-cause mortality risk among type 2 diabetes patients was rated as moderate according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method, and the absolute risk reduction of all-cause mortality of type 2 diabetic patients by diabetes self-management education was estimated to be 4 fewer per 1000 person-years (from 1 fewer to 6 fewer).

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that diabetes self-management education can reduce all-cause mortality risk in type 2 diabetes patients. Further clinical trials with longer time of follow-up are needed to validate the finding above.

Effect on cardiovascular disease risk factors of interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in primary care

Objective

To examine the effect on cardiovascular (CVD) risk factors of interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients with type 2 diabetes.

Search Strategy

Electronic and manual citation searching to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Inclusion Criteria

RCTs that compared usual care to interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients. The population was adults aged over 18 years with type 2 diabetes. Trials were set in primary care.

Data extraction and synthesis

We recorded if explicit theory‐based interventions were used, how consultations were measured to determine whether interventions had an effect on these and calculated weighted mean differences for CVD risk factors including glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), total cholesterol (TC), LDL cholesterol (LDL‐C) and HDL cholesterol (HDL‐C).

Results

We included seven RCTs with a total of 2277 patients with type 2 diabetes. A range of measures of the consultation was reported, and underlying theory to explain intervention processes was generally undeveloped and poorly applied. There were no overall effects on CVD risk factors; however, trials were heterogeneous. Subgroup analysis suggested some benefit among studies in which interventions demonstrated impact on consultations; statistically significant reductions in HbA_1c levels (weighted mean difference, −0.53%; 95% CI: [−0.77, −0.28]; P<.0001; I²=46%).

Conclusions

Evidence of effect on CVD risk factors from interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients with type 2 diabetes was heterogeneous and inconclusive. This could be explained by variable impact of interventions on consultations. More research is required that includes robust measures of the consultations and better development of theory to elucidate mechanisms.

Diabetes self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review of the effect on glycemic control

OBJECTIVE

Assess effect of diabetes self-management education and support methods, providers, duration, and contact time on glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, and PsycINFO to December 2013 for interventions which included elements to improve participants' knowledge, skills, and ability to perform self-management activities as well as informed decision-making around goal setting.

RESULTS

This review included 118 unique interventions, with 61.9% reporting significant changes in A1C. Overall mean reduction in A1C was 0.74 and 0.17 for intervention and control groups; an average absolute reduction in A1C of 0.57. A combination of group and individual engagement results in the largest decreases in A1C (0.88). Contact hours ≥10 were associated with a greater proportion of interventions with significant reduction in A1C (70.3%). In patients with persistently elevated glycemic values (A1C>9), a greater proportion of studies reported statistically significant reduction in A1C (83.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found robust data demonstrating that engagement in diabetes self-management education results in a statistically significant decrease in A1C levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The data suggest mode of delivery, hours of engagement, and baseline A1C can affect the likelihood of achieving statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in A1C.

Patient-centred care, health behaviours and cardiovascular risk factor levels in people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes: 5-year follow-up of the ADDITION-Plus trial cohort

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between the experience of patient-centred care (PCC), health behaviours and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor levels among people with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Population-based prospective cohort study.

SETTING

34 general practices in East Anglia, UK, delivering organised diabetes care.

PARTICIPANTS

478 patients recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes aged between 40 and 69 years enrolled in the ADDITION-Plus trial.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported and objectively measured health behaviours (diet, physical activity, smoking status), CVD risk factor levels (blood pressure, lipid levels, glycated haemoglobin, body mass index, waist circumference) and modelled 10-year CVD risk.

RESULTS

Better experiences of PCC early in the course of living with diabetes were not associated with meaningful differences in self-reported physical activity levels including total activity energy expenditure (β-coefficient: 0.080 MET h/day (95% CI 0.017 to 0.143; p=0.01)), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (β-coefficient: 5.328 min/day (95% CI 0.796 to 9.859; p=0.01)) and reduced sedentary time (β-coefficient: -1.633 min/day (95% CI -2.897 to -0.368; p=0.01)). PCC was not associated with clinically meaningful differences in levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (β-coefficient: 0.002 mmol/L (95% CI 0.001 to 0.004; p=0.03)), systolic blood pressure (β-coefficient: -0.561 mm Hg (95% CI -0.653 to -0.468; p=0.01)) or diastolic blood pressure (β-coefficient: -0.565 mm Hg (95% CI -0.654 to -0.476; p=0.01)). Over an extended follow-up of 5 years, we observed no clear evidence that PCC was associated with self-reported, clinical or biochemical outcomes, except for waist circumference (β-coefficient: 0.085 cm (95% CI 0.015 to 0.155; p=0.02)).

CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence that experience of PCC early in the course of diabetes was associated with clinically important changes in health-related behaviours or CVD risk factors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN99175498; Post-results.