Negotiating behavior changes with patients who have diabetes: negotiation or coercion?

A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient activation in people living with chronic conditions

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this review are to (1) describe the state of the science of patient activation interventions for the self-management of chronic conditions; (2) identify effective intervention elements for improving patient activation; and (3) compare intervention effectiveness across chronic conditions.

METHODS

This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles published between 2005 and 2019 were identified with intervention elements of self-management, disease management, and education. Meta-analysis of a subset of seven randomized controlled trials (n = 7) that used the 13-item version of the Patient Activation Measure with data collection points at 6 months demonstrated that patient activation did not change significantly in comparison with controls (MD = 0.25, 95 % CI = 0.02-0.47).

CONCLUSION

Most interventions reported significant improvement in patient activation and were linked to tasks such as regular exercise and monitoring glucose. However, the meta-analysis of RCTs did not confirm these findings.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patient activation can be assessed and addressed uniformly across all chronic conditions to improve patient engagement in care.

Diabetes self-management: what role does the family play?

Purpose

This paper aims to explicate one of the major findings of a research study seeking to understand how Indonesian people with diabetes learn about their disease. The one key finding discussed in this paper is how families influence the learning and self-management processes adopted by Indonesian people with diabetes.

Design/methodology/approach

A grounded theory methodology was adopted to investigate how Indonesian people with diabetes learn about their disease. Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews were undertaken with Indonesian people living with diabetes, families of people living with diabetes, healthcare professionals and other healthcare providers. Data was analysed by using constant comparative analysis during three coding stages.

Findings

The study explicated the basic social process of how people with diabetes in Indonesia learn about their disease through a generated theory “Learning, choosing, and acting: self-management of diabetes in Indonesia”. This study found family engagement was integral to Indonesian people living with diabetes who were self-managing their disease. Families assisted with seeking information, providing recommendations, selecting and implementing actions, appraising implemented actions, and informing others about their experiences. By acknowledging that family is involved in this process, the healthcare professional can adequately provide health education to both the person with diabetes and their families. Involving families in health education is crucial as family can influence decision making made by people with diabetes in a proper or improper way. Thus, clinicians need to also skilfully recognise difficulties these people encounter by monitoring their self-management progress and by working closely with them and their family members.

Originality/value

This is the first study conducted in Indonesia that specifically investigates the process of how people with diabetes learn about their disease. The involvement of families in this process is a central finding of the study. Families can enhance the overall health and well-being of the person with diabetes, aid in early recognition of aberration to health status and trigger the initiation of interventions to re-establish homeostasis if they are actively engaged and supported by health professionals.

Transforming the Patient Role to Achieve Better Outcomes Through a Patient Empowerment Program: A Randomized Wait-List Control Trial Protocol

Background

In the patient-centered medical home model of health care, both health care providers (HCPs) and patients must understand their respective roles and responsibilities, view the other as a partner, and use communication skills that promote shared decision making. This is particularly necessary in chronic conditions where outcomes depend on behavior change and in underserved populations where the burden of chronic disease is high.

Objective

The objectives of this study are to determine if a Patient Empowerment Program (PEP) (1) is acceptable to patients and feasible across multiple clinical sites; (2) will increase patient preference for control in medical decision making, improve patient perceptions of patient-HCP communication, and increase patient activation; (3) is associated with an increase in diabetes self-management behaviors; and (4) has an effect on hemoglobin A _1c(HbA _1c) level.

Methods

This study recruited English-speaking adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from three urban clinical sites in New York City and randomized them to an immediate intervention group that completed the PEP intervention or a deferred intervention group that served as a wait-list control and completed the PEP intervention after 3-4 months. The PEP intervention consists of two facilitated small group sessions. Session 1 focuses on defining HCP and patient roles in the medical encounter by introducing ideal communication behaviors in each role and by providing both positive and negative examples of patient-HCP encounters. Session 2 focuses on practicing communication skills by role-playing with actors who serve as standardized health care providers. After the role play, participants set goals for their own health care and for future interactions with their HCPs. Outcome measures include the Patient Activation Measure; Ask, Understand, Remember Assessment; Krantz Health Opinion Survey; SF-12v2 Health Survey; Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire; and HbA _1c. These measures will be assessed at the time of enrollment, after the waiting period (deferred intervention only), and then postintervention at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months.

Results

Study recruitment occurred from November 2014 to June 2015, with a total of 80 patients enrolled. To date, 45 participants have attended at least one session of the PEP intervention. Further intervention sessions and post-intervention follow-up are ongoing, with data collection set to be completed in April 2016 and results of data analysis available by June 2016.

Conclusions

From preliminary participant self-report data, our PEP intervention is acceptable to low-income, low–health literate patients and feasible to hold across multiple clinical sites. Participants have reported learning specific ways to change their behaviors at their next HCP visit (eg, stating their opinions, asking more questions). With the forthcoming quantitative data on participant attitudinal and behavior change, the PEP intervention may ultimately empower participants within the medical encounter and improve health outcomes.