Primary care provider perceptions of the effectiveness of two self-management support programs for vulnerable patients with diabetes

Health care professionals' views towards self-management and self-management education for people with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Significant problems with patients engaging with diabetes self-management education (DSME) exist. The role of healthcare professionals (HCPs) has been highlighted, with a lack of enthusiasm, inadequate information provision and poor promotion of available programmes all cited as affecting patients' decisions to attend. However, little is known about HCPs' views towards DSME. This study investigates the views of HCPs towards self-management generally and self-management in the context of DSME more specifically.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to investigate HCPs views of type 2 diabetes self-management and DSME. Data were analysed thematically and emergent themes were mapped on to the constructs of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT).

SETTING

Two boroughs in London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Sampling was purposive to recruit a diverse range of professional roles including GPs, practice nurses, diabetes specialist nurses, healthcare assistants (HCAs), receptionists and commissioners of care.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 22 participants. The NPT analysis demonstrated that while a self-management approach to diabetes care was viewed by HCPs as necessary and, in principle, valuable, the reality is much more complex. HCPs expressed ambivalence about pushing certain patients into self-managing, preferring to retain responsibility. There was a lack of awareness among HCPs about the content of DSME and benefits to patients. Commitment to and engagement with DSME was tempered by concerns about suitability for some patients. There was little evidence of communication between providers of group-based DSME and HCPs or of HCPs engaging in work to follow-up non-attenders.

CONCLUSIONS

HCPs have concerns about the appropriateness of DSME for all patients and discussed challenges to engaging with and performing the tasks required to embed the approach within practice. DSME, as a means of supporting self-management, was considered important in theory, but there was little evidence of HCPs seeing their role as extending beyond providing referrals.

Shared medical appointments for patients with a nondiabetic physical chronic illness: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Shared medical appointments are group appointments, with an optional individual consultation, for patients diagnosed with chronic illnesses. Shared medical appointments improve diabetes management, but little is known about their use for other illnesses. The objective was to determine the effect that shared medical appointments have on patients with a physical chronic illness, healthcare providers, and the healthcare system.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted searching databases from January 1970 to September 2016. Eligible trials evaluated shared medical appointments for patients with a homogeneous chronic illness, excluding diabetes and mental illness. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias were conducted independently by two authors. Analysis was descriptive.

RESULTS

Of 2364 citations, nine randomized trials were included. Shared medical appointments were evaluated for cardiovascular illnesses (four studies), breast cancer, chronic kidney disease, Parkinson's disease, stress urinary incontinence, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Compared to usual care, no negative effects on patient quality of life, knowledge and satisfaction were reported. One study reported no difference in healthcare provider satisfaction. Another study showed fewer hospital admissions for patients who attended shared medical appointments.

DISCUSSION

Few rigorous studies evaluated the use of shared medical appointments for chronic illnesses. Overall, there appears to be no patient harms. Further studies should include more objective outcomes and larger sample sizes.

Symptom practice guide for telephone assessment of patients with cancer treatment-related cardiotoxic dyspnea: Adaptation and evaluation of acceptability

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer treatment-related cardiotoxicity, which may manifest as heart failure (HF), can present with dyspnea. Nurses frequently assess, triage and offer self-care strategies to patients experiencing dyspnea in both the cardiology and oncology settings. However, there are no known tools available for nurses to manage patients in the setting of cancer treatment-related cardiotoxicity. The objective of this study was to adapt and evaluate the acceptability of an evidence-informed symptom practice guide (SPG) for use by nurses over the telephone for the assessment, triage, and management of patients experiencing dyspnea due to cancer treatment-related cardiotoxicity.

METHODS

The CAN-IMPLEMENT© methodology guided this descriptive study. A systematic search was conducted in four databases to identify cardio-oncology and HF guidelines and systematic reviews. Screening was conducted by two reviewers, with data extracted into a recommendation matrix from eligible guidelines and systematic reviews on: assessment criteria, medications, and/or self-care strategies to manage dyspnea. Healthcare professionals with an expertise in oncology and/or cardiology were recruited using purposeful and snowball sampling. Evaluation of acceptability of the adapted SPG was gathered through semi-structured interviews and a survey with open- and closed-ended questions. Quantitative findings and participant feedback from the interviews and the open-ended survey questions were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Of 490 citations, seven HF guidelines were identified. Evidence from these guidelines was added to the original SPG. Eleven healthcare professionals completed the interview and acceptability survey. The adapted SPG was iteratively revised three times during the interviews. The original SPG was adaptable, and participants indicated the adapted SPG was comprehensive, easy to follow, and would be useful in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the lack of knowledge tools and available clinical practice guidelines to guide healthcare professionals to assess, triage and/or offer self-care strategies to patients with cancer treatment-related cardiotoxic dyspnea. Moreover, most nurses require assistance to differentiate among the various causes of dyspnea from oncology treatment in order to triage severity appropriately. Further research should focus on evaluating the validity of the adapted SPG in clinical practice.

Sex and Race/Ethnicity Differences in Following Dietary and Exercise Recommendations for U.S. Representative Sample of Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

This study examined sex by race/ethnicity differences in medical advice received for diet and exercise with corresponding health behaviors of a U.S. representative sample of adults with type 2 diabetes ( N = 1,269). Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys for 2011-2014 for 185 Mexican Americans, 123 Other Hispanics, 392 non-Hispanic Blacks, 140 non-Hispanic Asians, and 429 non-Hispanic Whites were analyzed using logistic regression analyses. Reporting being given dietary and exercise advice was positively associated with reporting following the behavior. There were differences in sex and sex by race/ethnicity for reporting receiving medical advice and performing the advised health behavior. These results suggest the importance of physicians having patient-centered communication skills and cultural competency when discussing diabetes management.

The Next Frontier in Communication and the ECLIPPSE Study: Bridging the Linguistic Divide in Secure Messaging

Health systems are heavily promoting patient portals. However, limited health literacy (HL) can restrict online communication via secure messaging (SM) because patients' literacy skills must be sufficient to convey and comprehend content while clinicians must encourage and elicit communication from patients and match patients' literacy level. This paper describes the Employing Computational Linguistics to Improve Patient-Provider Secure Email (ECLIPPSE) study, an interdisciplinary effort bringing together scientists in communication, computational linguistics, and health services to employ computational linguistic methods to (1) create a novel Linguistic Complexity Profile (LCP) to characterize communications of patients and clinicians and demonstrate its validity and (2) examine whether providers accommodate communication needs of patients with limited HL by tailoring their SM responses. We will study >5 million SMs generated by >150,000 ethnically diverse type 2 diabetes patients and >9000 clinicians from two settings: an integrated delivery system and a public (safety net) system. Finally, we will then create an LCP-based automated aid that delivers real-time feedback to clinicians to reduce the linguistic complexity of their SMs. This research will support health systems' journeys to become health literate healthcare organizations and reduce HL-related disparities in diabetes care.

Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions

BACKGROUND

Automated telephone communication systems (ATCS) can deliver voice messages and collect health-related information from patients using either their telephone's touch-tone keypad or voice recognition software. ATCS can supplement or replace telephone contact between health professionals and patients. There are four different types of ATCS: unidirectional (one-way, non-interactive voice communication), interactive voice response (IVR) systems, ATCS with additional functions such as access to an expert to request advice (ATCS Plus) and multimodal ATCS, where the calls are delivered as part of a multicomponent intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ATCS for preventing disease and managing long-term conditions on behavioural change, clinical, process, cognitive, patient-centred and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 10 electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Global Health; WHOLIS; LILACS; Web of Science; and ASSIA); three grey literature sources (Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, Australasian Digital Theses); and two trial registries (www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov) for papers published between 1980 and June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster- and quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies comparing ATCS interventions, with any control or another ATCS type were eligible for inclusion. Studies in all settings, for all consumers/carers, in any preventive healthcare or long term condition management role were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and to appraise eligible studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 132 trials (N = 4,669,689). Studies spanned across several clinical areas, assessing many comparisons based on evaluation of different ATCS types and variable comparison groups. Forty-one studies evaluated ATCS for delivering preventive healthcare, 84 for managing long-term conditions, and seven studies for appointment reminders. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence primarily because of the risk of bias for many outcomes. We judged the risk of bias arising from allocation processes to be low for just over half the studies and unclear for the remainder. We considered most studies to be at unclear risk of performance or detection bias due to blinding, while only 16% of studies were at low risk. We generally judged the risk of bias due to missing data and selective outcome reporting to be unclear.For preventive healthcare, ATCS (ATCS Plus, IVR, unidirectional) probably increase immunisation uptake in children (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.32; 5 studies, N = 10,454; moderate certainty) and to a lesser extent in adolescents (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 2 studies, N = 5725; moderate certainty). The effects of ATCS in adults are unclear (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.02; 2 studies, N = 1743; very low certainty).For screening, multimodal ATCS increase uptake of screening for breast cancer (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.04; 2 studies, N = 462; high certainty) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.55; 3 studies, N = 1013; high certainty) versus usual care. It may also increase osteoporosis screening. ATCS Plus interventions probably slightly increase cervical cancer screening (moderate certainty), but effects on osteoporosis screening are uncertain. IVR systems probably increase CRC screening at 6 months (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.48; 2 studies, N = 16,915; moderate certainty) but not at 9 to 12 months, with probably little or no effect of IVR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99, 1.11; 2 studies, 2599 participants; moderate certainty) or unidirectional ATCS on breast cancer screening.Appointment reminders delivered through IVR or unidirectional ATCS may improve attendance rates compared with no calls (low certainty). For long-term management, medication or laboratory test adherence provided the most general evidence across conditions (25 studies, data not combined). Multimodal ATCS versus usual care showed conflicting effects (positive and uncertain) on medication adherence. ATCS Plus probably slightly (versus control; moderate certainty) or probably (versus usual care; moderate certainty) improves medication adherence but may have little effect on adherence to tests (versus control). IVR probably slightly improves medication adherence versus control (moderate certainty). Compared with usual care, IVR probably improves test adherence and slightly increases medication adherence up to six months but has little or no effect at longer time points (moderate certainty). Unidirectional ATCS, compared with control, may have little effect or slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty). The evidence suggested little or no consistent effect of any ATCS type on clinical outcomes (blood pressure control, blood lipids, asthma control, therapeutic coverage) related to adherence, but only a small number of studies contributed clinical outcome data.The above results focus on areas with the most general findings across conditions. In condition-specific areas, the effects of ATCS varied, including by the type of ATCS intervention in use.Multimodal ATCS probably decrease both cancer pain and chronic pain as well as depression (moderate certainty), but other ATCS types were less effective. Depending on the type of intervention, ATCS may have small effects on outcomes for physical activity, weight management, alcohol consumption, and diabetes mellitus. ATCS have little or no effect on outcomes related to heart failure, hypertension, mental health or smoking cessation, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects for preventing alcohol/substance misuse or managing illicit drug addiction, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV/AIDS, hypercholesterolaemia, obstructive sleep apnoea, spinal cord dysfunction or psychological stress in carers.Only four trials (3%) reported adverse events, and it was unclear whether these were related to the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ATCS interventions can change patients' health behaviours, improve clinical outcomes and increase healthcare uptake with positive effects in several important areas including immunisation, screening, appointment attendance, and adherence to medications or tests. The decision to integrate ATCS interventions in routine healthcare delivery should reflect variations in the certainty of the evidence available and the size of effects across different conditions, together with the varied nature of ATCS interventions assessed. Future research should investigate both the content of ATCS interventions and the mode of delivery; users' experiences, particularly with regard to acceptability; and clarify which ATCS types are most effective and cost-effective.

What is the evidence for the effectiveness, appropriateness and feasibility of group clinics for patients with chronic conditions? A systematic review

Background

Group clinics are a form of delivering specialist-led care in groups rather than in individual consultations.

Objective

To examine the evidence for the use of group clinics for patients with chronic health conditions.

Design

A systematic review of evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) supplemented by qualitative studies, cost studies and UK initiatives.

Data sources

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1999 to 2014. Systematic reviews and RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Additional searches were performed to identify qualitative studies, studies reporting costs and evidence specific to UK settings.

Review methods

Data were extracted for all included systematic reviews, RCTs and qualitative studies using a standardised form. Quality assessment was performed for systematic reviews, RCTs and qualitative studies. UK studies were included regardless of the quality or level of reporting. Tabulation of the extracted data informed a narrative synthesis. We did not attempt to synthesise quantitative data through formal meta-analysis. However, given the predominance of studies of group clinics for diabetes, using common biomedical outcomes, this subset was subject to quantitative analysis.

Results

Thirteen systematic reviews and 22 RCT studies met the inclusion criteria. These were supplemented by 12 qualitative papers (10 studies), four surveys and eight papers examining costs. Thirteen papers reported on 12 UK initiatives. With 82 papers covering 69 different studies, this constituted the most comprehensive coverage of the evidence base to date. Disease-specific outcomes – the large majority of RCTs examined group clinic approaches to diabetes. Other conditions included hypertension/heart failure and neuromuscular conditions. The most commonly measured outcomes for diabetes were glycated haemoglobin A1c(HbA1c), blood pressure and cholesterol. Group clinic approaches improved HbA1cand improved systolic blood pressure but did not improve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. A significant effect was found for disease-specific quality of life in a few studies. No other outcome measure showed a consistent effect in favour of group clinics. Recent RCTs largely confirm previous findings. Health services outcomes – the evidence on costs and feasibility was equivocal. No rigorous evaluation of group clinics has been conducted in a UK setting. A good-quality qualitative study from the UK highlighted factors such as the physical space and a flexible appointment system as being important to patients. The views and attitudes of those who dislike group clinic provision are poorly represented. Little attention has been directed at the needs of people from ethnic minorities. The review team identified significant weaknesses in the included research. Potential selection bias limits the generalisability of the results. Many patients who could potentially be included do not consent to the group approach. Attendance is often interpreted liberally.

Limitations

This telescoped review, conducted within half the time period of a conventional systematic review, sought breadth in covering feasibility, appropriateness and meaningfulness in addition to effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and utilised several rapid-review methods. It focused on the contribution of recently published evidence from RCTs to the existing evidence base. It did not reanalyse trials covered in previous reviews. Following rapid review methods, we did not perform independent double data extraction and quality assessment.

Conclusions

Although there is consistent and promising evidence for an effect of group clinics for some biomedical measures, this effect does not extend across all outcomes. Much of the evidence was derived from the USA. It is important to engage with UK stakeholders to identify NHS considerations relating to the implementation of group clinic approaches.

Future work

The review team identified three research priorities: (1) more UK-centred evaluations using rigorous research designs and economic models with robust components; (2) clearer delineation of individual components within different models of group clinic delivery; and (3) clarification of the circumstances under which group clinics present an appropriate alternative to an individual consultation.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Use of and interest in mobile health for diabetes self-care in vulnerable populations

Objective

We aimed to assess use of and interest in mobile health (mHealth) technology and in-person services for diabetes self-care in vulnerable populations.

Methods

We delivered a self-administered cross-sectional survey. Participants were recruited at two primary care practices (P1 and P2) with P1 located in a medically underserved area and P2 in an affluent suburb. Two-sample t-tests and chi-square tests were used with p < 0.05 significant. In addition, a secondary analysis was performed to analyse differences in use and interest in mHealth by age.

Results

Of 75 eligible patients, 60 completed the survey (80% response rate). P1 patients had significantly higher interest in three of five categories of in-person diabetes support services, one of four categories of health-related text messages (TM), and three of eight categories of mHealth applications ( p < 0.05). Smartphone users reported higher interest in TM ( p = 0.004) and mHealth applications for diabetes self-care ( p = 0.004). Younger patients were more likely to have a smartphone ( p < 0.006), use the Internet ( p < 0.0012), use smartphone applications ( p < 0.0004), and to be interested in using applications to manage their diabetes ( p < 0.004).

Discussion

This study shows substantial patient interest in TM and mHealth applications for diabetes self-care and suggests that patients in underserved areas may have particularly high interest in using mHealth solutions in primary care. Younger patients and smartphone users were more likely to be interested in using applications to manage their diabetes. As more patients use smartphones, interest in using mHealth to support patient self-care and strengthen primary care infrastructure will continue to grow.

Using Patient-Generated Health Data From Mobile Technologies for Diabetes Self-Management Support: Provider Perspectives From an Academic Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Mobile health and patient-generated health data are promising health IT tools for delivering self-management support in diabetes, but little is known about provider perspectives on how best to integrate these programs into routine care. We explored provider perceptions of a patient-generated health data report from a text-message-based diabetes self-management program. The report was designed to relay clinically relevant data obtained from participants' responses to self-assessment questions delivered over text message.

METHODS

Likert-type scale response surveys and in-depth interviews were conducted with primary care physicians and endocrinologists who pilot tested the patient-generated health data report in an actual clinical encounter. Interview guides were designed to assess providers' perceptions of the feasibility and utility of patient-generated health data in routine clinical practice. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Twelve providers successfully piloted the summary report in clinic. Although only a minority of providers felt the report changed the care they provided (3 of 12 or 25%), most were willing to use the summary report in a future clinical encounter (9 of 12 or 75%). Perceived benefits of patient-generated health data included agenda setting, assessment of self-care, and identification of patient barriers. Major themes discussed included patient selection, reliability of patient-generated health information, and integration into clinical workflow.

CONCLUSION

Providers perceived multiple benefits of patient-generated health data in overcoming common barriers to self-management support in clinical practice and found the summary report feasible and usable in a clinical context.