Dataset Information

Addressing literacy and numeracy to improve diabetes care: two randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: Diabetic patients with lower literacy or numeracy skills are at greater risk for poor diabetes outcomes. This study evaluated the impact of providing literacy- and numeracy-sensitive diabetes care within an enhanced diabetes care program on A1C and other diabetes outcomes.In two randomized controlled trials, we enrolled 198 adult diabetic patients with most recent A1C >or=7.0%, referred for participation in an enhanced diabetes care program. For 3 months, control patients received care from existing enhanced diabetes care programs, whereas intervention patients received enhanced programs that also addressed literacy and numeracy at each institution. Intervention providers received health communication training and used the interactive Diabetes Literacy and Numeracy Education Toolkit with patients. A1C was measured at 3 and 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included self-efficacy, self-management behaviors, and treatment satisfaction.At 3 months, both intervention and control patients had significant improvements in A1C from baseline (intervention -1.50 [95% CI -1.80 to -1.02]; control -0.80 [-1.10 to -0.30]). In adjusted analysis, there was greater improvement in A1C in the intervention group than in the control group (P = 0.03). At 6 months, there were no differences in A1C between intervention and control groups. Self-efficacy improved from baseline for both groups. No significant differences were found for self-management behaviors or satisfaction.A literacy- and numeracy-focused diabetes care program modestly improved self-efficacy and glycemic control compared with standard enhanced diabetes care, but the difference attenuated after conclusion of the intervention.

SUBMITTER: Cavanaugh K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2782967 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Addressing literacy and numeracy to improve diabetes care: two randomized controlled trials.

Cavanaugh Kerri K Wallston Kenneth A KA Gebretsadik Tebeb T Shintani Ayumi A Huizinga Mary Margaret MM Davis Dianne D Gregory Rebecca Pratt RP Malone Robb R Pignone Michael M DeWalt Darren D Elasy Tom A TA Rothman Russell L RL

Diabetes care 20090909 12

<h4>Objective</h4>Diabetic patients with lower literacy or numeracy skills are at greater risk for poor diabetes outcomes. This study evaluated the impact of providing literacy- and numeracy-sensitive diabetes care within an enhanced diabetes care program on A1C and other diabetes outcomes.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>In two randomized controlled trials, we enrolled 198 adult diabetic patients with most recent A1C >or=7.0%, referred for participation in an enhanced diabetes care program. ...[more]

PMID: 19741187

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedication nonadherence is an important obstacle to cardiovascular disease management.ObjectiveTo improve adherence through real-time feedback based on theories of how social forces influence behavior.DesignTwo randomized controlled pilot trials called PROMOTE and SUPPORT. Participants stored statin medication in wireless-enabled pill bottles that transmitted adherence data to researchers.ParticipantsAdults with diabetes and a history of low statin adherence based on pharmacy refills (i.e., Medication Possession Ratio [MPR] <80% in the pre-randomization screening period).InterventionIn PROMOTE, each participant was randomized to 1) weekly messages in which that participant's statin adherence was compared to that of other participants (comparison), 2) weekly summaries of that participant's statin adherence (summary), or 3) control. In SUPPORT, each participant identified another person (the Medication Adherence Partner [MAP]) to receive reports about that participant's adherence, and was randomized to 1) daily reports to MAP, 2) weekly reports to MAP, 3) reports to MAP only if dose was missed, or 4) control.Main outcomes measureAdherence measured by pill bottle.Key resultsAmong 45,000 health plan members contacted by mail, <1% joined the trial. Participants had low baseline MPRs (median?=?60%, IQR 41-72%) but high pill-bottle adherence (90% in PROMOTE, 92% in SUPPORT) during the trial. In PROMOTE (n?=?201) and SUPPORT (n?=?200), no intervention demonstrated significantly better adherence vs.ControlIn a subgroup of PROMOTE participants with the lowest pre-study MPR, pill-bottle-measured adherence in the comparison arm (89%) was higher than the control (86%) and summary (76%) arms, but differences were non-significant (p?=?0.10).ConclusionsInterventions based on social forces did not improve medication adherence vs. control over a 3-month period. Given the low percentage of invited individuals who enrolled, the studies may have attracted participants who required little encouragement to improve adherence other than study participation.

Project description:BackgroundEffective type 2 diabetes care remains a challenge for patients including those receiving primary care in safety net settings.ObjectiveThe Partnership to Improve Diabetes Education (PRIDE) trial team and leaders from a regional department of health evaluated approaches to improve care for vulnerable patients.DesignCluster randomized controlled trial.PatientsAdults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes seeking care across 10 unblinded, randomly assigned safety net clinics in Middle TN.InterventionsA literacy-sensitive, provider-focused, health communication intervention (PRIDE; 5 clinics) vs. standard diabetes education (5 clinics).Main measuresParticipant-level primary outcome was glycemic control [A1c] at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included select health behaviors and psychosocial aspects of care at 12 and 24 months. Adjusted mixed effects regression models were used to examine the comparative effectiveness of each approach to care.Key resultsOf 410 patients enrolled, 364 (89%) were included in analyses. Median age was 51 years; Black and Hispanic patients represented 18% and 25%; 96% were uninsured, and 82% had low annual income level (< $20,000); adequate health literacy was seen in 83%, but numeracy deficits were common. At 12 months, significant within-group treatment effects occurred from baseline for both PRIDE and control sites: adjusted A1c (- 0.76 [95% CI, - 1.08 to - 0.44]; P < .001 vs - 0.54 [95% CI, - 0.86 to - 0.21]; P = .001), odds of poor eating (0.53 [95% CI, 0.33-0.83]; P = .01 vs 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.68]; P < .001), treatment satisfaction (3.93 [95% CI, 2.48-6.21]; P < .001 vs 3.04 [95% CI, 1.93-4.77]; P < .001), and self-efficacy (2.97 [95% CI, 1.89-4.67]; P < .001 vs 1.81 [95% CI, 1.1-2.84]; P = .01). No significant difference was observed between study arms in adjusted analyses.ConclusionsBoth interventions improved the participant's A1c and behavioral outcomes. PRIDE was not more effective than standard education. Further research may elucidate the added value of a focused health communication program in this setting.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In primary care, patients play a crucial role in managing care processes and handling drug treatment. A decisive factor for success is their health literacy, and several interventions have been introduced to support patients in fulfilling their responsibility. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to assess the influence of such an intervention (ie, a medication module) within a patient-led electronic health record on patients' health literacy. METHODS:We conducted a randomized controlled study among community-dwelling patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients were recruited from primary care practices. After randomization, patients either had access to an internet-based medication module allowing them to store their medication information, look up drug information, and print a medication schedule (intervention group), or they received an information brochure on the importance of medication schedules (control group). After 4-8 weeks, all patients were invited to attend a structured medication review (ie, follow-up visit). Data were collected via questionnaires before the start of the intervention and during the follow-up visit. The main outcome measure was the mean difference in health literacy between baseline and follow-up assessments of patients in the control and intervention groups. RESULTS:Of 116 recruited patients, 107 (92.2%) completed the follow-up assessment and were eligible for intention-to-treat analyses. Only 73 patients, of which 29 were in the intervention group, followed the study protocol and were eligible for per-protocol analysis. No differences in overall health literacy were observed in either the intention-to-treat or in the per-protocol cohorts. Reasons for a null effect might be that the cohort was not particularly enriched with participants with low health literacy, thus precluding measurable improvement (ie, ceiling effect). Moreover, the success of implementation was considered poor because both the correct application of the study procedure (ie, randomization according to the protocol and dropout of 29 patients) and the actual interaction with the medication module was modest (ie, dropout of 9 patients). CONCLUSIONS:The conduct of this randomized controlled study was challenging, leaving it open whether inadequate implementation, too short of a duration, or insufficient efficacy of the intervention, as such, contributed to the null effect of this study. This clearly outlines the value of piloting complex interventions and the accompanying process evaluations.

Project description:Trauma resuscitation practices have continued to improve with new advances targeting prehospital interventions. The critical care burden associated with severely injured patients at risk of hemorrhage has been poorly characterized. We aim to describe the individual and additive effects of multiorgan failure (MOF) and nosocomial infection (NI) on delayed mortality and resource utilization. A secondary analysis of harmonized data from two large prehospital randomized controlled trials (Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial and Study of Tranexamic Acid during Air and Ground Medical Prehospital Transport (STAAMP) Trial) was conducted. Only those patients who survived beyond the first 24 hours post-injury and spent at least one day in the ICU were included. Patients were stratified by development of MOF only, NI only, both, or neither and diagnosis of early (≤ 3 days) versus late MOF (> 3 days). Risk factors of NI and MOF, time course of these ICU complications, associated mortality, and hospital resource utilization were evaluated. Of the 869 patients who were enrolled in PAMPer and STAAMP and who met study criteria, 27.4% developed MOF only (n = 238), 10.9% developed NI only (n = 95), and 15.3% were diagnosed with both MOF and NI (n = 133). Patients developing NI and/or MOF compared to those who had an uncomplicated ICU course had greater injury severity, lower GCS, and greater shock indexes. Early MOF occurred in isolation, while late MOF more often followed NI. MOF was associated with 65% higher independent risk of 30-day mortality when adjusting for cofounders (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.04-2.6; p = 0.03), however NI did not significantly affect odds of mortality. NI was individually associated with longer mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, hospital stay, and rehabilitation requirements, and the addition of MOF further increased the burden of inpatient and post-discharge care. MOF and NI remain common complications for those who survive traumatic injury. MOF is a robust independent predictor of mortality following injury in this cohort, and NI is associated with higher resource utilization. Timing of these ICU complications may reveal differences in pathophysiology and offer targets for continued advancements in treatment.

Project description:BackgroundSupported asthma self-management improves health outcomes. However, people with limited health literacy, especially in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), may need tailored interventions to enable them to realise the benefits. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of asthma self-management interventions targeted at people with limited health literacy and to identify strategies associated with effective programmes.MethodsFollowing Cochrane methodology, we searched ten databases (January 1990 - June 2018; updated October 2019), without language restriction. We included controlled experimental studies whose interventions targeted health literacy to improve asthma self-management. Selection of papers, extraction of data and quality assessment were done independently by two reviewers. The primary outcomes were clinical (asthma control) and implementation (adoption/adherence to intervention). Analysis was narrative.ResultsWe screened 4318 titles and abstracts, reviewed 52 full-texts and included five trials. One trial was conducted in a LMIC. Risk of bias was low in one trial and high in the other four studies. Clinical outcomes were reported in two trials, both at high risk of bias: one of which reported a reduction in unscheduled care (number of visits in 6-month (SD); Intervention:0.9 (1.2) vs Control:1.8 (2.4), P?=?0.001); the other showed no effect. None reported uptake or adherence to the intervention. Behavioural change strategies typically focused on improving an individual's psychological and physical capacity to enact behaviour (eg, targeting asthma-related knowledge or comprehension). Only two interventions also targeted motivation; none sought to improve opportunity. Less than half of the interventions used specific self-management strategies (eg, written asthma action plan) with tailoring to limited health literacy status. Different approaches (eg, video-based and pictorial action plans) were used to provide education.ConclusionsThe paucity of studies and diversity of the interventions to support people with limited health literacy to self-manage their asthma meant that the impact on health outcomes remains unclear. Given the proportion of the global population who have limited health literacy skills, this is a research priority.Protocol registrationPROSPERO CRD 42018118974.

Dataset Information

Addressing literacy and numeracy to improve diabetes care: two randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Addressing literacy and numeracy to improve diabetes care: two randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets