Dataset Information

Barriers to effective diabetes management - a survey of people with severe mental illness.

ABSTRACT:

Background

People with severe mental illnesses (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes and have poorer health outcomes than those with diabetes alone. To maintain good diabetes control, people with diabetes are advised to engage in several self-management behaviours. The aim of this study was to identify barriers or enablers of diabetes self-management experienced by people with SMI.

Methods

Adults with type 2 diabetes and SMI were recruited through UK National Health Service organisations and mental health and diabetes charities. Participants completed an anonymous survey consisting of: Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA); CORE-10 measure of psychological distress; a measure of barriers and enablers of diabetes self-management based on the Theoretical Domains Framework; Diabetes UK care survey on receipt of 14 essential aspects of diabetes healthcare. To identify the strongest explanatory variables of SDSCA outcomes, significant variables (p ResultsMost of the 77 participants had bipolar disorder (42%) or schizophrenia (36%). They received a mean of 7.6 (SD 3.0) diabetes healthcare essentials. Only 28.6% had developed a diabetes care plan with their health professional and only 40% reported receiving specialist psychological support. Engagement in self-management activities was variable. Participants reported taking medication on 6.1 (SD 2.0) days in the previous week but other behaviours were less frequent: general diet 4.1 (2.3) days; specific diet 3.6 (1.8) days, taking exercise 2.4 (2.1) days and checking feet on 1.7 (1.8) days. Smoking prevalence was 44%. Participants reported finding regular exercise and following a healthy diet particularly difficult. Factors associated with diabetes self-management included: the level of diabetes healthcare and support received; emotional wellbeing; priority given to diabetes; perceived ability to manage diabetes or establish a routine to do so; and perceived consequences of diabetes self-management.

Conclusions

Several aspects of diabetes healthcare and self-management are suboptimal in people with SMI. There is a need to improve diabetes self-management support for this population by integrating diabetes action plans into care planning and providing adequate psychological support to help people with SMI manage their diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Mulligan K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5984777 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Barriers to effective diabetes management - a survey of people with severe mental illness.

Mulligan Kathleen K McBain Hayley H Lamontagne-Godwin Frederique F Chapman Jacqui J Flood Chris C Haddad Mark M Jones Julia J Simpson Alan A

BMC psychiatry 20180601 1

<h4>Background</h4>People with severe mental illnesses (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes and have poorer health outcomes than those with diabetes alone. To maintain good diabetes control, people with diabetes are advised to engage in several self-management behaviours. The aim of this study was to identify barriers or enablers of diabetes self-management experienced by people with SMI.<h4>Methods</h4>Adults with type 2 diabetes ...[more]

PMID: 29859061

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiabetes self-management education programmes are effective in improving health outcomes in the general population with diabetes. However, it is not known if these programmes include people who also have a severe mental illness (SMI) and, if so, what their outcomes are. The aim of this review was to examine if evaluations of diabetes self-management education programmes included people with SMI, and if so, whether the interventions were beneficial for this population.MethodsThe inclusion criteria for this systematic review, defined by PICOS criteria, were: Population - Adults with type 2 diabetes; Intervention - self-management education programme; Comparator - another active intervention or usual care; Outcomes of interest - inclusion of people with SMI and the clinical, behavioural and psychosocial outcomes in this population; Study design - randomised controlled trials. The following bibliographic databases were searched from January 2004 to April 2018: Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Allied and Complimentary Medicine Database, Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluations Database and CINAHL. Data were extracted on study characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, participant and intervention characteristics, number of participants with SMI, and outcomes for people with SMI, if reported. Authors were contacted by email for missing data.ResultsA total of 410 trials were included. At least 42% of trials did not recruit any participants with SMI. Only nine confirmed inclusion of participants with SMI, of which six provided data on the number recruited. These six trials recruited a total of 1009 participants, of whom 31 (3.1%) had SMI. It was not possible to assess intervention effectiveness for people with SMI as none of the trials reported outcomes for these participants.ConclusionsThis systematic review confirms that people with SMI are often excluded from trials of diabetes self-management education, resulting in a lack of an evidence base on which to base treatment paths for this vulnerable population. It cannot be assumed that programmes developed for the general diabetes population meet the needs of people with SMI. Future research needs to examine if and how these programmes could be adapted for people with SMI or if new programmes are required.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To establish healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views about clinical roles, and the barriers and enablers to delivery of diabetes care for people with severe mental illness (SMI). DESIGN:Cross-sectional, postal and online survey. SETTING:Trusts within the National Health Service, mental health and diabetes charities, and professional bodies. PARTICIPANTS:HCPs who care for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or SMI in the UK. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The barriers, enablers and experiences of delivering T2DM care for people with SMI, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS:Respondents were 273 HCPs, primarily mental health nurses (33.7%) and psychiatrists (32.2%). Only 25% of respondents had received training in managing T2DM in people with SMI. Univariate analysis found that mental health professionals felt responsible for significantly fewer recommended diabetes care standards than physical health professionals (P<0.001). For those seeing diabetes care as part of their role, the significant barriers to its delivery in the multiple regression analyses were a lack of knowledge (P=0.003); a need for training in communication and negotiation skills (P=0.04); a lack of optimism about the health of their clients (P=0.04) and their ability to manage T2DM in people with SMI (P=0.003); the threat of being disciplined (P=0.02); fear of working with people with a mental health condition (P=0.01); a lack of service user engagement (P=0.006); and a need for incentives (P=0.04). The significant enablers were an understanding of the need to tailor treatments (P=0.04) and goals (P=0.02) for people with SMI. CONCLUSIONS:This survey indicates that despite current guidelines, diabetes care in mental health settings remains peripheral. Even when diabetes care is perceived as part of an HCP's role, various individual and organisational barriers to delivering recommended T2DM care standards to people with SMI are experienced.

Project description:Interventions: We are assessing the impact of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) by comparing participation rates of people with and without Severe Mental Illness (SMI) and looking at health outcomes. We will be using data collected from Aug 2006 - latest available. We are linking data using Commonwealth data (NBCSP, Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Australian Cancer Database & the National Death Index) to compare bowel cancer screening participation in people with SMI to those from the general population. We will additionally link these to the NSW cancer registry and hospital data to examine care pathways from diagnosis through treatment and end-of-life care. We will also conduct a consultation with people with experience of SMI and Colorectal cancer and people with SMI in peer support roles who can provide their perspective on the barriers faced by people with SMI to gaining timely screening, diagnosis and optimal care. These participants will be recruited from New South Wales consumer organisations and organisations with a strong focus on provision of peer support and advocacy. We will use a semi structured group interview schedule to facilitate discussion of a single focus group of 15 people. The group will consist of both people with lived experience who have direct experience of bowel cancer (n=10), as well as other people with lived experience who have supported people in this situation – as peer support workers or in other consumer advocacy/support roles (n=5). We will use this qualitative arm of the study to further develop our understanding of the quantitative findings. The consultation will also develop ideas on how to improve access to care. Primary outcome(s): Participation rates in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program assessed using data from the NBCSP.[Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006) (the date of commencement of the NBCSP) or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later.. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and were recorded in the administrative data. This will be assessed when we receive the data.];Colonoscopy rates assessed using data from the NBCSP [Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006 the date of commencement of the NBCSP), or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later, until colonoscopy. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and have been recorded in the administrative data.];Cancer diagnosis using data from the Australian Cancer Database[Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006 the date of commencement of the NBCSP), or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later, until cancer diagnosis. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and have been recorded in the administrative data.] Study Design: Purpose: Screening;Duration: Longitudinal;Selection: Case control;Timing: Both

Project description:BACKGROUND:An advance directive is a document specifying a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make such decisions in the future. They have been used in end-of-life settings to direct care but should be well suited to the mental health setting. OBJECTIVES:To examine the effects of advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2008), BIOSIS (1985 to February 2008), CINAHL (1982 to February 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), PsycINFO (1872 to February 2008), as well as SCISEARCH and Google - Internet search engine (February 2008). We inspected relevant references and contacted first authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adults with severe mental illness, comparing any form of advance directive with standard care for health service and clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence interval again using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS:We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance.

Project description:People with severe mental illness (SMI), including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, have excess rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Risk prediction models validated for the general population may not accurately estimate cardiovascular risk in this group.To develop and validate a risk model exclusive to predicting CVD events in people with SMI incorporating established cardiovascular risk factors and additional variables.We used anonymous/deidentified data collected between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2010, from the Health Improvement Network (THIN) to conduct a primary care, prospective cohort and risk score development study in the United Kingdom. Participants included 38,824 people with a diagnosis of SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or other nonorganic psychosis) aged 30 to 90 years. During a median follow-up of 5.6 years, 2324 CVD events (6.0%) occurred.Ten-year risk of the first cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, cerebrovascular accidents, or major coronary surgery). Predictors included age, sex, height, weight, systolic blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, smoking, body mass index (BMI), lipid profile, social deprivation, SMI diagnosis, prescriptions for antidepressants and antipsychotics, and reports of heavy alcohol use.We developed 2 CVD risk prediction models for people with SMI: the PRIMROSE BMI model and the PRIMROSE lipid model. These models mutually excluded lipids and BMI. In terms of discrimination, from cross-validations for men, the PRIMROSE lipid model D statistic was 1.92 (95% CI, 1.80-2.03) and C statistic was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83) compared with 1.74 (95% CI, 1.63-1.86) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.75-0.82) for published Cox Framingham risk scores. The corresponding results in women were 1.87 (95% CI, 1.76-1.98) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76-0.82) for the PRIMROSE lipid model and 1.58 (95% CI, 1.48-1.68) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81) for the Cox Framingham model. Discrimination statistics for the PRIMROSE BMI model were comparable to those for the PRIMROSE lipid model. Calibration plots suggested that both PRIMROSE models were superior to the Cox Framingham models.The PRIMROSE BMI and lipid CVD risk prediction models performed better in SMI compared with models that include only established CVD risk factors. Further work on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PRIMROSE models is needed to ascertain the best thresholds for offering CVD interventions.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with severe mental illness are two to three times more likely to be overweight or have obesity than the general population and this is associated with significant morbidity and premature mortality. Liraglutide 3 mg is a once daily injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist that is licensed for the treatment of obesity in the general population and has the potential to be used in people with severe mental illness.AimsTo record the expectations and experiences of people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders or first episode psychosis taking daily liraglutide 3 mg injections in a clinical trial for the treatment of obesity. To seek the views of healthcare professionals about the feasibility of delivering the intervention in routine care.MethodsQualitative interviews were undertaken with a purposive sub-sample of people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders or first episode psychosis with overweight or obesity who were treated with a daily injection of liraglutide 3 mg in a double-blinded, randomised controlled pilot study evaluating the use of liraglutide for the treatment of obesity. Interviews were also conducted with healthcare professionals.ResultsSeventeen patient participants were interviewed. Sixteen took part in the baseline interview, eight completed both baseline and follow-up interviews, and one took part in follow-up interview only. Mean interview duration was thirteen minutes (range 5-37 min). Despite reservations by some participants about the injections before the study, most of those who completed the trial reported no challenges in the timing of or administering the injections. Key themes included despondency regarding prior medication associated weight gain, quality of life impact of weight loss, practical aspects of participation including materials received and clinic attendance. Healthcare professionals reported challenges with recruitment, however, overall it was a positive experience for them and for participants.ConclusionLiraglutide appears to be an acceptable therapy for obesity in this population with limited side effects. The quality of life benefits realised by several intervention participants reinforce the biomedical benefits of achieved weight loss.

Project description:BackgroundWe conducted a trial to test the electronic Illness Management and Recovery (e-IMR) intervention to provide conclusions on the potential efficacy of eHealth for people with severe mental illness (SMI). In the e-IMR intervention, we used the standard IMR program content and methodology and combined face-to-face sessions with internet-based strategies on the constructed e-IMR internet platform. During the trial, the e-IMR platform was sparsely used.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the added value of the e-IMR intervention and the barriers and facilitators that can explain the low use of the e-IMR platform.MethodsThis process evaluation was designed alongside a multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial. In this study, we included all available participants and trainers from the intervention arm of the trial. Baseline characteristics were used to compare users with nonusers. Qualitative data were gathered at the end of the semistructured interviews. Using theoretical thematic analyses, the data were analyzed deductively using a pre-existing coding frame.ResultsOut of 41 eligible participants and 14 trainers, 27 participants and 11 trainers were interviewed. Of the 27 participants, 10 were identified as users. eHealth components that had added value were the persuasive nature of the goal-tracking sheets, monitoring, and the peer testimonials, which had the potential to enhance group discussions and disclosure by participants. The low use of the e-IMR platform was influenced by the inflexibility of the platform, the lack of information technology (IT) resources, the group context, participants' low computer skills and disabilities, and the hesitant eHealth attitude of the trainers.ConclusionsThe extent of eHealth readiness and correlations with vulnerabilities in persons with SMI need further investigation. This study shows that flexible options were needed for the use of e-IMR components and that options should be provided only in response to a participant's need. Use of the e-IMR intervention in the future is preconditioned by checking the available IT resources (such as tablets for participants) providing computer or internet guidance to participants outside the group sessions, evaluating the eHealth attitude and skills of trainers, and tailoring eHealth training to increase the skills of future e-IMR trainers.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR4772; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/4621.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1186/s12913-016-1267-z.

Dataset Information

Barriers to effective diabetes management - a survey of people with severe mental illness.

Background

Methods

Conclusions

Publications

Barriers to effective diabetes management - a survey of people with severe mental illness.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets