Dataset Information

Patient-centered communication and shared decision making to reduce HbA1c levels of patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus - results of the cluster-randomized controlled DEBATE trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Does an intervention designed to foster patient-centered communication and shared decision making among GPs and their patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus reduce the level of HbA1c.

Methods

The DEBATE trial is a cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted in German primary care and including patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus having an HbA1c level of 8.0% (64?mmol/mol) or above at the time of recruitment. Data was measured before intervention (baseline, T0), 6-8?months (T1), 12-14?months (T2), 18-20?months (T3), and 24-26?months (T4) after baseline. Main outcome measure is the level of HbA1c.

Results

In both, the intervention and the control group the decline of the HbA1c level from T0 to T4 was statistically significant (-?0.67% (95% CI: -?0.80,-0.54%; p?ConclusionsAlthough the DEBATE trial was not able to confirm effectiveness of the intervention tested compared to care as usual, the results suggest that patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes are able to improve their blood glucose levels. This finding may encourage physicians to stay on task to regularly approach this cohort of patients.

Trial registration

The trial was registered at ISRCTN registry under the reference ISRCTN70713571 .

SUBMITTER: Wollny A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6593484 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient-centered communication and shared decision making to reduce HbA1c levels of patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus - results of the cluster-randomized controlled DEBATE trial.

Wollny Anja A Altiner Attila A Daubmann Anne A Drewelow Eva E Helbig Christian C Löscher Susanne S Pentzek Michael M Santos Sara S Wegscheider Karl K Wilm Stefan S Löffler Christin C

BMC family practice 20190625 1

<h4>Background</h4>Does an intervention designed to foster patient-centered communication and shared decision making among GPs and their patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus reduce the level of HbA1c.<h4>Methods</h4>The DEBATE trial is a cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted in German primary care and including patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus having an HbA1c level of 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) or above at the time of recruitment. Data was measured before intervention ( ...[more]

PMID: 31238871

Similar Datasets

Project description:RationalePoor adherence to asthma controller medications results in poor treatment outcomes.ObjectivesTo compare controller medication adherence and clinical outcomes in 612 adults with poorly controlled asthma randomized to one of two different treatment decision-making models or to usual care.MethodsIn shared decision making (SDM), nonphysician clinicians and patients negotiated a treatment regimen that accommodated patient goals and preferences. In clinician decision making, treatment was prescribed without specifically eliciting patient goals/preferences. The otherwise identical intervention protocols both provided asthma education and involved two in-person and three brief phone encounters.Measurements and main resultsRefill adherence was measured using continuous medication acquisition (CMA) indices-the total days' supply acquired per year divided by 365 days. Cumulative controller medication dose was measured in beclomethasone canister equivalents. In follow-up Year 1, compared with usual care, SDM resulted in: significantly better controller adherence (CMA, 0.67 vs. 0.46; P < 0.0001) and long-acting beta-agonist adherence (CMA, 0.51 vs. 0.40; P = 0.0225); higher cumulative controller medication dose (canister equivalent, 10.9 vs. 5.2; P < 0.0001); significantly better clinical outcomes (asthma-related quality of life, health care use, rescue medication use, asthma control, and lung function). In Year 2, compared with usual care, SDM resulted in significantly lower rescue medication use, the sole clinical outcome available for that year. Compared with clinician decision making, SDM resulted in: significantly better controller adherence (CMA, 0.67 vs. 0.59; P = 0.03) and long-acting beta-agonist adherence (CMA, 0.51 vs. 0.41; P = 0.0143); higher cumulative controller dose (CMA, 10.9 vs. 9.1; P = 0.005); and quantitatively, but not significantly, better outcomes on all clinical measures.ConclusionsNegotiating patients' treatment decisions significantly improves adherence to asthma pharmacotherapy and clinical outcomes. Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00217945 and NCT00149526).

Project description:BackgroundPoor patient-provider communication, among other reasons, is a notable barrier to contraceptive decision-making among Latinas. Patient-centered approaches to contraceptive counseling that optimize communication align with shared decision-making (SDM) -which is associated with satisfaction and continued contraceptive use among various populations.ObjectiveTo examine associations of patient-provider communication and importance of SDM tenets with consistent contraceptive use among a population of Latinas.Patient involvementFormative work for this study included prior qualitative and quantitative research with Latinas who expressed the importance of patient-provider communication during contraceptive counseling and therefore were instrumental in problem definition.MethodsCross-sectional surveys were administered to Latinas ages 15-29 years. Patient-provider communication, patient-reported importance of specific SDM tenets, and consistent contraception use were measured and analyzed for associations.Results103 Latinas (mean age = 21.4) participated. 33% of participants<21 years were using contraception consistently vs. 67% for those ≥ 21 (p = 0.003). Among participants ≥ 21, consistent users reported higher communication scores compared to inconsistent users and non-users (p = 0.042). For participants< 21, consistent users were more likely than inconsistent users and non-users to report that 2 SDM tenets (discussion of contraceptive preferences and avoidance of race/ethnic-based judgement) are important (p = 0.052, 0.028, respectively).DiscussionPatient-provider communication was especially important for Latinas ≥ 21 while using an SDM approach during counseling was highly valued by those<21. Patient-centered approaches to contraceptive counseling provide opportunities to optimize healthcare delivery for this vulnerable population.Practical valueResults from this research demonstrate that patient-centered communication is highly valued by Latina study participants and is an important consideration in their contraceptive counseling. Clinicians should consider employing techniques such as SDM as they seek to provide patient-centered care during contraceptive counseling for this patient population.

Project description:BackgroundRisk communication is a core aspect of a physician's work and a fundamental prerequisite for successful shared decision-making. However, many physicians are not able to adequately communicate risks to patients due to a lack of understanding of statistics as well as inadequate management of conflicts of interest (COI).ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of an integrated curriculum encompassing COI and shared decision-making on the participants' risk communication competence, that is, their competence to advise patients on the benefits and harms of diagnostic or therapeutic interventions.DesignA rater-blind randomized controlled trial with a 30 (± 1)-week follow-up conducted from October 2016 to June 2017 at two German academic medical centers.ParticipantsSixty-three medical students in their fourth or fifth year.InterventionsParticipants received either a newly developed 15-h curriculum or a course manual adapted from teaching as usual.Main measuresPrimary outcome: change in risk communication performance in a video-observed structured clinical examination (VOSCE).Key resultsParticipants were 25.7 years old on average (SD 3.6); 73% (46/63) were female. Increase in risk communication performance was significantly higher in the intervention group with post-intervention Cohen's d of 2.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.62 to 3.01, p < 0.01) and of 1.83 (CI 1.13 to 2.47, p < 0.01) 30 (± 1) weeks later. Secondary outcomes with the exception of frequency of interactions with the pharmaceutical industry also showed relevant improvements in the intervention as compared with the control group (d between 0.91 and 2.04 (p < 0.001)).ConclusionsOur results show that an integrated curriculum encompassing COI and risk communication leads to a large and sustainable increase in risk communication performance. We interpret the large effect sizes to be a result of the integration of topics that are usually taught separately, leading to a more effective organization of knowledge.Trial registrationThe trial is registered in the International Clinical Trials Registry with the trial number DRKS00010890.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).ObjectiveWe examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.DesignMulticenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.ApproachWe performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.ParticipantsWe interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.ResultsAll clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.

Dataset Information

Patient-centered communication and shared decision making to reduce HbA1c levels of patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus - results of the cluster-randomized controlled DEBATE trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Trial registration

Publications

Patient-centered communication and shared decision making to reduce HbA1c levels of patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus - results of the cluster-randomized controlled DEBATE trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets