Dataset Information

Multiple behaviour change intervention and outcomes in recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes: the ADDITION-Plus randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Aims/hypothesis

The aim of this study was to assess whether or not a theory-based behaviour change intervention delivered by trained and quality-assured lifestyle facilitators can achieve and maintain improvements in physical activity, dietary change, medication adherence and smoking cessation in people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

Methods

An explanatory randomised controlled trial was conducted in 34 general practices in Eastern England (Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care-Plus [ADDITION-Plus]). In all, 478 patients meeting eligibility criteria (age 40 to 69 years with recently diagnosed screen or clinically detected diabetes) were individually randomised to receive either intensive treatment (n = 239) or intensive treatment plus a theory-based behaviour change intervention led by a facilitator external to the general practice team (n = 239). Randomisation was central and independent using a partial minimisation procedure to balance stratifiers between treatment arms. Facilitators taught patients skills to facilitate change in and maintenance of key health behaviours, including goal setting, self-monitoring and building habits. Primary outcomes included physical activity energy expenditure (individually calibrated heart rate monitoring and movement sensing), change in objectively measured fruit and vegetable intake (plasma vitamin C), medication adherence (plasma drug levels) and smoking status (plasma cotinine levels) at 1 year. Measurements, data entry and laboratory analysis were conducted with staff unaware of participants' study group allocation.

Results

Of 475 participants still alive, 444 (93%; intervention group 95%, comparison group 92%) attended 1-year follow-up. There were no significant differences between groups in physical activity (difference: +1.50 kJ kg(-1) day(-1); 95% CI -1.74, 4.74), plasma vitamin C (difference: -3.84 μmol/l; 95% CI -8.07, 0.38), smoking (OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.77, 2.43) and plasma drug levels (difference in metformin levels: -119.5 μmol/l; 95% CI -335.0, 95.9). Cardiovascular risk factors and self-reported behaviour improved in both groups with no significant differences between groups.

Conclusions/interpretation

For patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes receiving intensive treatment in UK primary care, a facilitator-led individually tailored behaviour change intervention did not improve objectively measured health behaviours or cardiovascular risk factors over 1 year.

Trial registration

ISRCTN99175498 FUNDING: The trial is supported by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, National Health Service R&D support funding (including the Primary Care Research and Diabetes Research Networks) and National Institute of Health Research under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme. The Primary Care Unit is supported by NIHR Research funds. Bio-Rad provided equipment for HbA1c testing during the screening phase.

SUBMITTER: Griffin SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4052009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate feasibility of multiple sclerosis (MS) exercise guidelines for inactive people with MS (PwMS) and to examine preliminary efficacy for walking. To investigate effect of augmenting that intervention with education based on social cognitive theory (SCT).DesignPilot multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel, controlled trial.SettingCommunity-delivered programme.ParticipantsSixty-five physically inactive PwMS walked independently, scored 0-3 on the Patient Determined Disease Steps Scale, had no MS relapse or change in MS medication in 12 weeks.Interventions10-week exercise plus SCT education (SCT) compared with exercise plus attention control education (CON).Outcome measuresSix-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Timed Up and Go (TUG) test and Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12).Results174 expressed interest, 92 were eligible and 65 enrolled (SCT, n=32; CON, n=33). The intervention was feasible and delivered as intended. 68% of SCT group and 50% of control group met the exercise guidelines after intervention. Using linear mixed effects models, intention-to-treat basis, there was insufficient evidence for difference between the groups over the trial (6MWT, p=0.30; TUG, p=0.4; MSWS-12, p=0.8). Using secondary analysis of a cohort with data for≥3 assessments (SCT, n=21; CON, n=20), there was significant treatment effect favouring the intervention group (p=0.04) with mean effect for 6MWT 39.0 m (95% CI 2.26 to 75.73) at 12 weeks and 40.0 m (95% CI 2.3 to 77.8) at 36 weeks. Both groups improved significantly in 6MWT following 10-week intervention (SCT, mean ∆=83.02, SD=60.1, p≤0.01; CON, mean ∆=56.92, SD=73.5, p≤0.01), TUG (SCT, ∆=-0.70, SD=1.25, p≤0.01; CON, ∆=-0.54, SD=0.95, p≤0.01) and MSWS-12 (SCT, ∆=-8.03, SD=16.18, p=0.02; CON, ∆=-0.86, SD=18.74, p=0.81).ConclusionsA 10-week exercise programme based on the MS exercise guidelines for improving walking in previously inactive PwMS was feasible. There is marginal evidence of a treatment effect in favour of the exercise plus SCT intervention at 12 and 36 weeks.Trial registration numberNCT02301442; Results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:National diabetes audits in the UK show room for improvement in the quality of care delivered to people with type 2 diabetes in primary care. Systematic reviews of quality improvement interventions show that such approaches can be effective but there is wide variability between trials and little understanding concerning what explains this variability. A national cohort study of primary care across 99 UK practices identified modifiable predictors of healthcare professionals' prescribing, advising and foot examination. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of an implementation intervention to improve six guideline-recommended health professional behaviours in managing type 2 diabetes in primary care: prescribing for blood pressure and glycaemic control, providing physical activity and nutrition advice and providing updated diabetes education and foot examination. METHODS:Two-armed cluster randomised trial involving 44 general practices. Primary outcomes (at 12 months follow-up): from electronic medical records, the proportion of patients receiving additional prescriptions for blood pressure and insulin initiation for glycaemic control and having a foot examination; and from a patient survey of a random sample of 100 patients per practice, reported receipt of updated diabetes education and physical activity and nutrition advice. RESULTS:The implementation intervention did not lead to statistically significant improvement on any of the six clinical behaviours. 1,138,105 prescriptions were assessed. Intervention (29% to 37% patients) and control arms (31% to 35%) increased insulin initiation relative to baseline but were not statistically significantly different at follow-up (IRR 1.18, 95%CI 0.95-1.48). Intervention (45% to 53%) and control practices (45% to 50%) increased blood pressure prescription from baseline to follow-up but were not statistically significantly different at follow-up (IRR 1.05, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.16). Intervention (75 to 78%) and control practices (74 to 79%) increased foot examination relative to baseline; control practices increased statistically significantly more (OR 0.84, 95%CI 0.75-0.94). Fewer patients in intervention (33%) than control practices (40%) reported receiving updated diabetes education (OR?=?0.74, 95%CI 0.57-0.97). No statistically significant differences were observed in patient reports of having had a discussion about nutrition (intervention?=?73%; control?=?72%; OR?=?0.98, 95%CI 0.59-1.64) or physical activity (intervention?=?57%; control?=?62%; OR?=?0.79, 95%CI 0.56-1.11). Development and delivery of the intervention cost £1191 per practice. CONCLUSIONS:There was no measurable benefit to practices' participation in this intervention. Despite widespread use of outreach interventions worldwide, there is a need to better understand which techniques at which intensity are optimally suited to address the multiple clinical behaviours involved in improving care for type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN, ISRCTN66498413 . Registered April 4, 2013.

Project description:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is generally progressive and associated with reduced physical activity. Both pharmacological therapy and exercise training can improve exercise capacity; however, these are often not sufficient to change the amount of daily physical activity a patient undertakes. Behaviour-change self-management programmes are designed to address this, including setting motivational goals and providing social support. We present and discuss the necessary methodological considerations when integrating behaviour-change interventions into a multicentre study.PHYSACTO is a 12-week phase IIIb study assessing the effects on exercise capacity and physical activity of once-daily tiotropium+olodaterol 5/5 µg with exercise training, tiotropium+olodaterol 5/5 µg without exercise training, tiotropium 5 µg or placebo, with all pharmacological interventions administered via the Respimat inhaler. Patients in all intervention arms receive a behaviour-change self-management programme to provide an optimal environment for translating improvements in exercise capacity into increases in daily physical activity. To maximise the likelihood of success, special attention is given in the programme to: (1) the Site Case Manager, with careful monitoring of programme delivery; (2) the patient, incorporating patient-evaluation/programme-evaluation measures to guide the Site Case Manager in the self-management intervention; and (3) quality assurance, to help identify and correct any problems or shortcomings in programme delivery and ensure the effectiveness of any corrective steps. This paper documents the comprehensive methods used to optimise and standardise the behaviour-change self-management programme used in the study to facilitate dialogue on the inclusion of this type of programme in multicentre studies.The study has been approved by the relevant Institutional Review Boards, Independent Ethics Committee and Competent Authority according to national and international regulations. The results of this study will be disseminated through relevant, peer-reviewed journals and international conference presentations.NCT02085161.

Project description:BackgroundNew clinical research findings may require clinicians to change their behaviour to provide high-quality care to people with type 2 diabetes, likely requiring them to change multiple different clinical behaviours. The present study builds on findings from a UK-wide study of theory-based behavioural and organisational factors associated with prescribing, advising, and examining consistent with high-quality diabetes care.AimTo develop and evaluate the effectiveness and cost of an intervention to improve multiple behaviours in clinicians involved in delivering high-quality care for type 2 diabetes.Design/methodsWe will conduct a two-armed cluster randomised controlled trial in 44 general practices in the North East of England to evaluate a theory-based behaviour change intervention. We will target improvement in six underperformed clinical behaviours highlighted in quality standards for type 2 diabetes: prescribing for hypertension; prescribing for glycaemic control; providing physical activity advice; providing nutrition advice; providing on-going education; and ensuring that feet have been examined. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients appropriately prescribed and examined (using anonymised computer records), and advised (using anonymous patient surveys) at 12 months. We will use behaviour change techniques targeting motivational, volitional, and impulsive factors that we have previously demonstrated to be predictive of multiple health professional behaviours involved in high-quality type 2 diabetes care. We will also investigate whether the intervention was delivered as designed (fidelity) by coding audiotaped workshops and interventionist delivery reports, and operated as hypothesised (process evaluation) by analysing responses to theory-based postal questionnaires. In addition, we will conduct post-trial qualitative interviews with practice teams to further inform the process evaluation, and a post-trial economic analysis to estimate the costs of the intervention and cost of service use.DiscussionConsistent with UK Medical Research Council guidance and building on previous development research, this pragmatic cluster randomised trial will evaluate the effectiveness of a theory-based complex intervention focusing on changing multiple clinical behaviours to improve quality of diabetes care.Trial registrationISRCTN66498413.