Dataset Information

Informed shared decision-making programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To translate an informed shared decision-making programme (ISDM-P) for patients with type 2 diabetes from a specialised diabetes centre to the primary care setting. DESIGN:Patient-blinded, two-arm multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial of 6 months follow-up; concealed randomisation of practices after patient recruitment and acquisition of baseline data. SETTING:22 general practices providing care according to the German Disease Management Programme (DMP) for type 2 diabetes. PARTICIPANTS:279 of 363 eligible patients without myocardial infarction or stroke. INTERVENTIONS:The ISDM-P comprises a patient decision aid, a corresponding group teaching session provided by medical assistants and a structured patient-physician encounter.Control group received standard DMP care. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary endpoint was patient adherence to antihypertensive or statin drug therapy by comparing prescriptions and patient-reported uptake after 6 months. Secondary endpoints included informed choice, risk knowledge (score 0-11 from 11 questions) and prioritised treatment goals of patients and doctors. RESULTS:ISDM-P: 11 practices with 151 patients; standard care: 11 practices with 128 patients; attrition rate: 3.9%. There was no difference between groups regarding the primary endpoint. Mean drug adherence rates were high for both groups (80% for antihypertensive and 91% for statin treatment). More ISDM-P patients made informed choices regarding statin intake, 34% vs 3%, OR 16.6 (95% CI 4.4 to 63.0), blood pressure control, 39% vs 3%, OR 22.2 (95% CI 5.3 to 93.3) and glycated?haemoglobin, 43% vs 3%, OR 26.0 (95% CI 6.5 to 104.8). ISDM-P patients achieved higher levels of risk knowledge, with a mean score of 6.96 vs 2.86, difference 4.06 (95% CI 2.96 to 5.17). In the ISDM-P group, agreement on prioritised treatment goals between patients and doctors was higher, with 88.5% vs 57%. CONCLUSIONS:The ISDM-P was successfully implemented in general practices. Adherence to medication was very high making improvements hardly detectable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN77300204; Results.

SUBMITTER: Buhse S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6303685 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Informed shared decision-making programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.

Buhse Susanne S Kuniss Nadine N Liethmann Kathrin K Müller Ulrich Alfons UA Lehmann Thomas T Mühlhauser Ingrid I

BMJ open 20181214 12

<h4>Objective</h4>To translate an informed shared decision-making programme (ISDM-P) for patients with type 2 diabetes from a specialised diabetes centre to the primary care setting.<h4>Design</h4>Patient-blinded, two-arm multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial of 6 months follow-up; concealed randomisation of practices after patient recruitment and acquisition of baseline data.<h4>Setting</h4>22 general practices providing care according to the German Disease Management Programme (DMP) ...[more]

PMID: 30552272

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate an informed shared decision-making programme (ISDM-P) for people with type 2 diabetes under high fidelity conditions. DESIGN:Randomised, single-blinded trial with sham control intervention and follow-up of 6 months. SETTING:Single-centre diabetes clinic providing care according to the national disease management programme in Germany. PARTICIPANTS:154 people with type 2 diabetes without diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease or stroke. INTERVENTIONS:The ISDM-P is executed by diabetes educators. Core component is a patient decision aid on the prevention of myocardial infarction supplemented by a 90 min group teaching session. The structurally equivalent control intervention addresses stress issues. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome was risk comprehension, including realistic expectations about benefits and harms of interventions. It was assessed by a 12-item questionnaire after the teaching session when patients set and prioritise their treatment goals. Key secondary outcome was adherence to treatment goals, operationalised as achievement of individual goals and medication uptake. ISDM-P teaching sessions were video-taped to monitor intervention fidelity. RESULTS:72 of 77 ISDM-P and 71 of 77 control patients completed the questionnaire (score 0-12). ISDM-P patients achieved higher levels of risk comprehension, mean score 8.25 vs 2.62, difference 5.63 (95% CI 4.82 to 6.44), and realistic expectations (score 0-6), 4.51 vs 0.85, 3.67 (3.23 to 4.11). More ISDM-P patients wished to take statins, 59.2% vs 30.4%, 28.7% (12.9% to 44.5%); more prioritised blood pressure control, 51.4% vs 25.7%, and fewer intensive glucose control, 33.3% vs 60%, p=0.002. More ISDM-P patients achieved their glycated haemoglobin goals, 95.8% vs 85.7%, 10.1% (0.6% to 19.5%). Achievement of prioritised goals and medication uptake were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS:The ISDM-P on preventive measures in type 2 diabetes was effective under high fidelity conditions. Involvement of diabetes educators may facilitate implementation of the informed shared decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN84636255.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain is a common and disabling condition leading to large health service and societal costs. Although there are several treatment options for back pain little is known about how to improve patient choice in treatment selection. The purpose of this study was to pilot a decision support package to help people choose between low back pain treatments.MethodsThis was a single-centred pilot cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in a community physiotherapy service. We included adults with non-specific low back pain referred for physiotherapy. Intervention participants were sent an information booklet prior to their first consultation. Intervention physiotherapists were trained to enhance their skills in shared informed decision making. Those in the control arm received care as usual. The primary outcome was satisfaction with the treatment received at four months using a five-point Likert Scale dichotomised into "satisfaction" (very satisfied or somewhat satisfied) and "non-satisfaction" (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).ResultsWe recruited 148 participants. In the control arm 67% of participants were satisfied with their treatment and in the intervention arm 53%. The adjusted relative risk of being satisfied was 1.28 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 2.09). For most secondary outcomes the trend was towards worse outcomes in the intervention group. For one measure; the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, this difference was clinically important (2.27, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 4.47). Mean healthcare costs were slightly lower (£38 saving per patient) within the intervention arm but health outcomes were also less favourable (0.02 fewer QALYs); the estimated probability that the intervention would be cost-effective at an incremental threshold of £20,000 per QALY was 16%.ConclusionWe did not find that this decision support package improved satisfaction with treatment; it may have had a substantial negative effect on clinical outcome, and is very unlikely to prove cost-effective. That a decision support package might have a clinically important detrimental effect is of concern. To our knowledge this has not been observed previously. Decision support packages should be formally tested for clinical and cost-effectiveness, and safety before implementation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN46035546 registered on 11/02/10.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:For antidepressants, the translation of evidence of comparative effectiveness into practice is suboptimal. This deficit directly affects outcomes and quality of care for patients with depression. To overcome this problem, we developed the Depression Medication Choice (DMC) encounter decision aid, designed to help patients and clinicians consider the available antidepressants and the extent to which they improved depression and other issues important to patients. OBJECTIVE:Estimate the effect of DMC on quality of the decision-making process and depression outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted a cluster randomized trial of adults with moderate to severe depression considering treatment with an antidepressant. Primary care practices in 10 rural, suburban, and urban primary care practices across Minnesota and Wisconsin were randomly allocated to treatment of depression with or without use of the DMC decision aid. INTERVENTION:Depression Medication Choice, a series of cards, each highlighting the effect of the available options on an issue of importance to patients for use during face-to-face consultations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Decision-making quality as judged by patient knowledge and involvement in decision making, patient and clinician decisional comfort (Decisional Conflict Scale) and satisfaction, encounter duration, medication adherence, depression symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9). RESULTS:We enrolled 117 clinicians and 301 patients (67% women; mean [SD] age, 44 [15] years; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 15 [4]) into the trial. Compared with usual care (UC), use of DMC significantly improved patients' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 75%; P = .02), knowledge (DMC, 65% vs UC, 56%; P =?.03), satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], from 1.25 [P =?.81] to RR, 2.4 [P =?.002] depending on satisfaction domain), and involvement (DMC, 47% vs UC, 33%; P<.001). It also improved clinicians' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 68%; P <?.001) and satisfaction (RR, 1.64; P =?.02). There were no differences in encounter duration, medication adherence, or improvement of depression control between arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:The DMC decision aid helped primary care clinicians and patients with moderate to severe depression select antidepressants together, improving the decision-making process without extending the visit. On the other hand, DMC had no discernible effect on medication adherence or depression outcomes. By translating comparative effectiveness into patient-centered care, use of DMC improved the quality of primary care for patients with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01502891.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Intensive lifestyle change (e.g., the Diabetes Prevention Program) and metformin reduce type 2 diabetes risk among patients with prediabetes. However, real-world uptake remains low. Shared decision-making (SDM) may increase awareness and help patients select and follow through with informed options for diabetes prevention that are aligned with their preferences. OBJECTIVE:To test the effectiveness of a prediabetes SDM intervention. DESIGN:Cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Twenty primary care clinics within a large regional health system. PARTICIPANTS:Overweight/obese adults with prediabetes (BMI???24 kg/m2 and HbA1c 5.7-6.4%) were enrolled from 10 SDM intervention clinics. Propensity score matching was used to identify control patients from 10 usual care clinics. INTERVENTION:Intervention clinic patients were invited to participate in a face-to-face SDM visit with a pharmacist who used a decision aid (DA) to describe prediabetes and four possible options for diabetes prevention: DPP, DPP ± metformin, metformin only, or usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Primary endpoint was uptake of DPP (??9 sessions), metformin, or both strategies at 4 months. Secondary endpoint was weight change (lbs.) at 12 months. RESULTS:Uptake of DPP and/or metformin was higher among SDM participants (n =?351) than controls receiving usual care (n =?1028; 38% vs. 2%, p <?.001). At 12-month follow-up, adjusted weight loss (lbs.) was greater among SDM participants than controls (-?5.3 vs. -?0.2, p?<?.001). LIMITATIONS:Absence of DPP supplier participation data for matched patients in usual care clinics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:A prediabetes SDM intervention led by pharmacists increased patient engagement in evidence-based options for diabetes prevention and was associated with significantly greater uptake of DPP and/or metformin at 4 months and weight loss at 12 months. Prediabetes SDM may be a promising approach to enhance prevention efforts among patients at increased risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was registered at clinicaltrails.gov (NCT02384109)).

Dataset Information

Informed shared decision-making programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Informed shared decision-making programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets