Dataset Information

Primary Care Cluster RCT to Increase Diabetes Prevention Program Referrals.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The Diabetes Prevention Program, an intensive lifestyle change program, effectively reduces the risk of progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes but is underutilized. An implementation study using formative research was undertaken to increase Diabetes Prevention Program referrals at a primary care clinic.

Study design

A pragmatic, cluster randomized, mixed-methods study.

Setting/particpants

Clusters were teams of primary care clinicians from 2 primary care clinics. The 3 intervention clusters had 8-11 clinicians, and the 3 control clusters had 7-20 clinicians.

Intervention

Implementation activities occurred from December 2017 to February 2019. The activities included targeted clinician education, a prediabetes clinician champion, and a custom electronic health record report identifying patients with prediabetes.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was referral of patients with prediabetes to the institutional Diabetes Prevention Program. Study data, including patient demographic and clinical variables, came from electronic health record. Interviews with clinicians evaluated the implementation strategies. Generalized estimating equation analyses that accounted for multiple levels of correlation and interview content analysis occurred in 2019.

Results

Study clinicians cared for 2,992 patients with a prediabetes diagnosis or HbA1c indicative of prediabetes (5.7%-6.4%). Clinicians in the intervention clusters referred 6.9% (87 of 1,262) of patients with prediabetes to the Diabetes Prevention Program and those in the control clusters referred 1.5% (26 of 1,730). When adjusted for patient age, sex, race, HbA1c value, HbA1c test location, and insurance type, intervention clinicians had 3.85 (95% CI=0.40, 36.78) greater odds of referring a patient with prediabetes to the Diabetes Prevention Program. The 11 interviewed intervention clinicians had mixed opinions about the utility of the interventions, reporting the prediabetes clinic champion (n=7, 64%) and educational presentations (n=6, 55%) as most helpful.

Conclusions

Intervention clinicians were more likely to make Diabetes Prevention Program referrals; however, the study lacked power to achieve statistical significance. Clinician interviews suggested that intervention components that triggered Diabetes Prevention Program referrals varied among clinicians.

SUBMITTER: Keck JW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7346283 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Process evaluation studies are recommended to improve our understanding of underlying mechanisms related to clinicians, patients, context and intervention delivery that may impact on trial or program results and on their potential transferability to practice. This paper aims to document the translation of a type-2 diabetes (T2D) prevention program into the routine context of several primary care centers, assessing process indicators related to clinician adoption, patient recruitment, exposure to the intervention components and baseline characteristics.An observational descriptive process evaluation study was conducted of the 2.5-year implementation of the Prevention of Diabetes in Euskadi cluster randomized trial in 14 primary care centers of the Basque Health Service (Osakidetza). The clinical intervention consisted of three components: (1) risk screening, (2) an educational intervention promoting healthy lifestyles, and (3) remote support (follow-up). A passive dissemination strategy of providing training and materials was used to translate the intervention into practice. All non-diabetic patients aged 45 to 70 years who were identified as being at high risk of developing T2D were eligible for study inclusion. The RE-AIM framework guided the process evaluation.Overall, 31.4 % of family physicians and 57.6 % of nurses participated in the study, while 4170 out of 67,293 (6.2 %) targeted patients who attended the centers during the implementation period were reached through the screening. Around half of the screened patients were identified as being at high risk of developing T2D (FINDRISC score ?14). The rate of refusal to participate and the proportion of women were higher in the intervention group. Finally, 634 and 454 non-diabetic 45- to 70-year-old patients who were at high risk of T2D were included in the control and intervention group centers (intervention reach?=?48 %). Significant variability in most process indicators was observed at center level.The passive dissemination strategy has produced modest process indicators related to the adoption, reach and implementation of the intervention program, and reduced the possibility of its standardized application in heterogeneous contexts. The resulting different procedures and strategies used by the centers were associated with process outcomes. Context-specific variability and possible confounding will require rigorous procedures for analysis of the intervention effects.The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01365013 ). Registered on June 2011.

Project description:The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) lifestyle intervention reduced the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) among high-risk adults by 58%, with weight loss as the dominant predictor. However, it has not been adequately translated into primary care.We evaluated 2 adapted DPP lifestyle interventions among overweight or obese adults who were recruited from 1 primary care clinic and had pre-DM and/or metabolic syndrome. Participants were randomized to (1) a coach-led group intervention (n = 79), (2) a self-directed DVD intervention (n = 81), or (3) usual care (n = 81). During a 3-month intensive intervention phase, the DPP-based behavioral weight-loss curriculum was delivered by lifestyle coach-led small groups or home-based DVD. During the maintenance phase, participants in both interventions received lifestyle change coaching and support remotely-through secure email within an electronic health record system and the American Heart Association Heart360 website for weight and physical activity goal setting and self-monitoring. The primary outcome was change in body mass index (BMI) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) from baseline to 15 months.At baseline, participants had a mean (SD) age of 52.9 (10.6) years and a mean BMI of 32.0 (5.4); 47% were female; 78%, non-Hispanic white; and 17%, Asian/Pacific Islander. At month 15, the mean ± SE change in BMI from baseline was -2.2 ± 0.3 in the coach-led group vs -0.9 ± 0.3 in the usual care group (P < .001) and -1.6 ± 0.3 in the self-directed group vs usual care (P = .02). The percentages of participants who achieved the 7% DPP-based weight-loss goal were 37.0% (P = .003) and 35.9% (P = .004) in the coach-led and self-directed groups, respectively, vs 14.4% in the usual care group. Both interventions also achieved greater net improvements in waist circumference and fasting plasma glucose level.Proven effective in a primary care setting, the 2 DPP-based lifestyle interventions are readily scalable and exportable with potential for substantial clinical and public health impact.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00842426.

Project description:The largest and longest clinical trial of metformin for the prevention of diabetes is the Diabetes Prevention Program/Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPP/DPPOS). In this review, we summarise data from the DPP/DPPOS, focusing on metformin for diabetes prevention, as well as its long-term glycaemic and cardiometabolic effects and safety in people at high-risk of developing diabetes. The DPP (1996-2001) was a RCT of 3234 adults who, at baseline, were at high-risk of developing diabetes. Participants were assigned to masked placebo (n = 1082) or metformin (n = 1073) 850 mg twice daily, or intensive lifestyle intervention (n = 1079). The masked metformin/placebo intervention phase ended approximately 1 year ahead of schedule because of demonstrated efficacy. Primary outcome was reported at 2.8 years. At the end of the DPP, all participants were offered lifestyle education and 88% (n = 2776) of the surviving DPP cohort continued follow-up in the DPPOS. Participants originally assigned to metformin continued to receive metformin, unmasked. The DPP/DPPOS cohort has now been followed for over 15 years with prospective assessment of glycaemic, cardiometabolic, health economic and safety outcomes. After an average follow-up of 2.8 years, metformin reduced the incidence of diabetes by 31% compared with placebo, with a greater effect in those who were more obese, had a higher fasting glucose or a history of gestational diabetes. The DPPOS addressed the longer-term effects of metformin, showing a risk reduction of 18% over 10 and 15 years post-randomisation. Metformin treatment for diabetes prevention was estimated to be cost-saving. At 15 years, lack of progression to diabetes was associated with a 28% lower risk of microvascular complications across treatment arms, a reduction that was no different among treatment groups. Recent findings suggest metformin may reduce atherosclerosis development in men. Originally used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, metformin, now proven to prevent or delay diabetes, may serve as an important tool in battling the growing diabetes epidemic. Long-term follow-up, currently underway in the DPP/DPPOS, is now evaluating metformin's potential role, when started early in the spectrum of dysglycaemia, on later-stage comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease and cancer.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00038727 and NCT00004992.

Project description:PurposeDespite a call for earlier diagnosis of dementia, the diagnostic yield of case finding and its impact on the mental health of patients and relatives are unclear. This study assessed the effect of a two-component intervention of case finding and subsequent care on these outcomes.MethodsIn a cluster RCT we assessed whether education of family physicians (FPs; trial stage 1) resulted in more mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia diagnoses among older persons in whom FPs suspected cognitive decline and whether case finding by a practice nurse and the FP (trial stage 2) added to this number of diagnoses. In addition, we assessed mental health effects of case finding and subsequent care (trial stage 2). FPs of 15 primary care practices (PCPs = clusters) judged the cognitive status of all persons ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome, new MCI and dementia diagnoses by FPs after 12 months as indicated on a list, was assessed among all persons in whom FPs suspected cognitive impairment but without a formal diagnosis of dementia. The secondary outcome, mental health of patients and their relatives, was assessed among persons consenting to participate in trial stage 2. Trial stage 1 consisted of either intervention component 1: training FPs to diagnose MCI and dementia, or control: no training. Trial stage 2 consisted of either intervention component 2: case finding of MCI and dementia and care by a trained nurse and the FP, or control: care as usual.ResultsSeven PCPs were randomized to the intervention; eight to the control condition. MCI or dementia was diagnosed in 42.3% (138/326) of persons in the intervention, and in 30.5% (98/321) in the control group (estimated difference GEE: 10.8%, OR: 1.51, 95%-CI 0.60-3.76). Among patients and relatives who consented to stage 2 of the trial (n = 145; 25%), there were no differences in mental health between the intervention and control group.ConclusionsWe found a non-significant increase in the number of new MCI diagnoses. As we cannot exclude a clinically relevant effect, a larger study is warranted to replicate ours.Trial registrationNederlands Trial Register NTR3389.