Dataset Information

A randomized trial of peer coach and office staff support to reduce coronary heart disease risk in African-Americans with uncontrolled hypertension.

ABSTRACT: Adopting features of the Chronic Care Model may reduce coronary heart disease risk and blood pressure in vulnerable populations. We evaluated a peer and practice team intervention on reduction in 4-year coronary heart disease risk and systolic blood pressure.A single blind, randomized, controlled trial in two adjacent urban university-affiliated primary care practices. Two hundred eighty African-American subjects aged 40 to 75 with uncontrolled hypertension.Three monthly calls from trained peer patients with well-controlled hypertension and, on alternate months, two practice staff visits to review a personalized 4-year heart disease risk calculator and slide shows about heart disease risks. All subjects received usual physician care and brochures about healthy cooking and heart disease.Change in 4-year coronary heart disease risk (primary) and change in systolic blood pressure, both assessed at 6 months.At baseline, the 136 intervention and 144 control subjects' mean 4-year coronary heart disease risk did not differ (intervention=5.8 % and control=6.4 %, P=0.39), and their mean systolic blood pressure was the same (140.5 mmHg, p=0.83). Endpoint data for coronary heart disease were obtained for 69 % of intervention and 82 % of control subjects. After multiple imputation for missing endpoint data, the reduction in risk among all 280 subjects favored the intervention, but was not statistically significant (difference -0.73 %, 95 % confidence interval: -1.54 % to 0.09 %, p=0.08). Among the 247 subjects with a systolic blood pressure endpoint (85 % of intervention and 91 % of control subjects), more intervention than control subjects achieved a >5 mmHg reduction (61 % versus 45 %, respectively, p=0.01). After multiple imputation, the absolute reduction in systolic blood pressure was also greater for the intervention group (difference -6.47 mmHg, 95 % confidence interval: -10.69 to -2.25, P=0.003). One patient died in each study arm.Peer patient and office-based behavioral support for African-American patients with uncontrolled hypertension did not result in a significantly greater reduction in coronary heart disease risk but did significantly reduce systolic blood pressure.

SUBMITTER: Turner BJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3445668 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized trial of peer coach and office staff support to reduce coronary heart disease risk in African-Americans with uncontrolled hypertension.

Turner Barbara J BJ Hollenbeak Christopher S CS Liang Yuanyuan Y Pandit Kavita K Joseph Shelly S Weiner Mark G MG

Journal of general internal medicine 20120509 10

<h4>Objective</h4>Adopting features of the Chronic Care Model may reduce coronary heart disease risk and blood pressure in vulnerable populations. We evaluated a peer and practice team intervention on reduction in 4-year coronary heart disease risk and systolic blood pressure.<h4>Design and subjects</h4>A single blind, randomized, controlled trial in two adjacent urban university-affiliated primary care practices. Two hundred eighty African-American subjects aged 40 to 75 with uncontrolled hyper ...[more]

PMID: 22570108

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeer support has been shown to improve diabetes self-management and control, but no standard exists to link peer support interventions to clinical care.ObjectiveTo compare a community-based diabetes self-management education (DSME) plus mobile health (mHealth)-enhanced peer support intervention to community-based diabetes self-management education (DSME) alone for African American adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.DesignA randomized controlled trial.ParticipantsAfrican American adults, age > 19 years, receiving care within a safety-net healthcare system in Jefferson County, Alabama, with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and a hemoglobin A1c (A1C) ≥ 7.5%.InterventionsParticipants in the intervention group received community-based diabetes self-management education (DSME) plus 6 months of mHealth-enhanced peer support, including 12 weekly phone calls, then 3 monthly calls from community health workers, who used a novel web application to communicate with participants' healthcare teams. In the control group, participants received community-based DSME alone.Main measuresThe primary outcome was A1C; secondary outcomes included diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, self-efficacy or confidence in their ability to manage diabetes, and social support. We used mixed models repeated measures analyses to assess for between-arm differences and baseline to follow-up changes.Key resultsOf 120 participants randomized, 97 completed the study. Participants in intervention and control groups experienced clinically meaningful reduction in A1C, 10.1 (SD 1.7) to 9.6 (SD 1.9) and 9.8 (SD 1.7) to 9.1 (SD 1.9) respectively, p = 0.004. Participants in the intervention group experienced a significantly larger reduction in diabetes distress compared to the control, 2.7 (SD 1.2) to 2.1 (1.0) versus 2.6 (SD 1.1) to 2.3 (SD 1.0) p = 0.041.ConclusionsCommunity-based DSME with and without peer support led to improved glycemic control. Peer support linked to clinical care led to a larger reduction in diabetes distress, which has important implications for the overall wellbeing of adults with type 2 diabetes.

Project description:BackgroundOffice workers typically sit for most of the workday, which has been linked to physical and mental ill-health and premature death. This mixed-methods study sought to identify barriers and facilitators to reducing sitting and increasing standing among office workers who received an intervention prototype (the 'ReSiT [Reducing Sitting Time] Study'). The intervention comprised a sit-stand workstation and tailored advice to enhance motivation, capability and opportunity to displace sitting with standing.MethodsTwenty-nine UK university office workers (aged ≥18y, working ≥3 days per week, most time spent at a seated desk) participated in a 13-week uncontrolled study. They were initially monitored for one-week. In a subsequent face-to-face consultation, participants received sitting time feedback from a prior one-week monitoring period, and selected from a set of tailored sitting-reduction techniques. Quantitative data comprising sitting, standing and stepping time, which were objectively monitored for 7 consecutive days across three post-intervention timepoints, were descriptively analysed. Qualitative data, from semi-structured interviews conducted at 1, 6 and 12-weeks post-intervention, were thematically analysed.ResultsCompared to baseline, mean sitting time decreased at weeks 1, 6 and 12 by 49.7mins, 118.2mins, and 109.7mins respectively. Despite prior concerns about colleagues' reactions to standing, many reported encouragement from others, and standing could be equally conducive to social interaction or creating private, personal space. Some perceived less cognitively-demanding tasks to be more conducive to standing, though some found standing offered a valued break from challenging tasks. Participants prioritised workload over sitting reduction and were more likely to stand after rather than during work task completion. Temporary context changes, such as holidays, threatened to derail newfound routines.ConclusionsOur findings emphasise the importance of understanding workers' mental representations of their work, and the social functions of sitting and standing in the workplace. Workplace intervention developers should incorporate a pre-intervention sitting time monitoring period, encourage workers to identify personally meaningful tasks and cues for standing, and build organisational support for sitting-reduction. We will use these insights to refine our intervention for self-administered delivery.Trial registrationISRCTN29395780 (registered 21 November 2016).

Project description:BackgroundPain self-management is an effective, evidence-based treatment for chronic pain. Peer support, in which patients serve as coaches for other patients, has been effective in other chronic conditions and is a potentially promising approach to implementing pain self-management programs using fewer clinical resources.ObjectiveTo test a peer coach-delivered pain self-management program for chronic pain.DesignRandomized controlled trial.ParticipantsVeterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain.InterventionIntervention patients were assigned a trained peer coach for 6 months. Coaches, who were volunteers, were asked to contact their assigned patients, either by phone or in person, twice per month. Coaches and patients were given an intervention manual to guide sessions. The control group was offered a 2-hour pain self-management class.Main measuresThe primary outcome was total pain, assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, pain catastrophizing, self-efficacy, social support, patient activation, health-related quality of life, and healthcare utilization. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 months, and 9 months.Key resultsTwo hundred fifteen patients enrolled (120 intervention, 95 control). Adherence to intervention protocol was low, with only 13% of patients reporting having at least the recommended 12 peer coach meetings over the 6-month intervention. BPI total decreased from baseline to 6 months and baseline to 9 months in both groups. At 9 months, this change was statistically significant (intervention, - 0.40, p = 0.018; control, - 0.47, p = 0.006). There was not a statistically significant difference between groups on BPI at either time point. No secondary outcomes improved significantly in either group after adjusting for multiple comparisons.ConclusionsPatients randomized to peer support did not differ from control patients on primary and secondary outcomes. Other peer support models that do not rely on volunteers might be more effective.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02380690.

Project description:ImportanceRural Black participants need effective intervention to achieve better blood pressure (BP) control.ObjectiveAmong Black rural adults with persistently uncontrolled hypertension attending primary care clinics, to determine whether peer coaching (PC), practice facilitation (PF), or both (PCPF) are superior to enhanced usual care (EUC) in improving BP control.Design, setting, and participantsA cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in 69 rural primary care practices across Alabama and North Carolina between September 23, 2016, and September 26, 2019. The participating practices were randomized to 4 groups: PC plus EUC, PF plus EUC, PCPF plus EUC, and EUC alone. The baseline EUC approach included a laptop for each participating practice with hyperlinks to participant education on hypertension, a binder of practice tips, a poster showing an algorithm for stepped care to improve BP, and 25 home BP monitors. The trial was stopped on February 28, 2021, after final data collection. The study included Black participants with persistently uncontrolled hypertension. Data were analyzed from February 28, 2021, to December 13, 2022.InterventionsPractice facilitators helped practices implement at least 4 quality improvement projects designed to improve BP control throughout 1 year. Peer coaches delivered a structured program via telephone on hypertension self-management throughout 1 year.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of participants in each trial group with BP values of less than 140/90 mm Hg at 6 months and 12 months. The secondary outcome was a change in the systolic BP of participants at 6 months and 12 months.ResultsA total of 69 practices were randomized, and 1209 participants' data were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) age of participants was 58 (12) years, and 748 (62%) were women. In the intention-to-treat analyses, neither intervention alone nor in combination improved BP control or BP levels more than EUC (at 12 months, PF vs EUC odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.58-1.52]; PC vs EUC OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.83-2.04]; PCPF vs EUC OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.64-1.64]). In preplanned subgroup analyses, participants younger than 60 years in the PC and PCPF groups experienced a significant 5 mm Hg greater reduction in systolic BP than participants younger than 60 years in the EUC group at 12 months. Practicewide BP control estimates in PF groups suggested that BP control improved from 54% to 61%, a finding that was not observed in the trial's participants.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cluster randomized clinical trial demonstrated that neither PC nor PF demonstrated a superior improvement in overall BP control compared with EUC. However, PC led to a significant reduction in systolic BP among younger adults.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02866669.

Dataset Information

A randomized trial of peer coach and office staff support to reduce coronary heart disease risk in African-Americans with uncontrolled hypertension.

Publications

A randomized trial of peer coach and office staff support to reduce coronary heart disease risk in African-Americans with uncontrolled hypertension.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets