Dataset Information

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments (SMAs) as Implemented in Five Veterans Affairs Health Systems: a Multi-site Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine whether diabetes shared medical appointments (SMAs) implemented as part of usual clinical practice in diverse health systems are more effective than usual care in improving and sustaining A1c improvements.

Research design and methods

A multi-site cluster randomized pragmatic trial examining implementation in clinical practice of diabetes SMAs in five Veterans Affairs (VA) health systems was conducted from 2016 to 2020 among 1537 adults with type 2 diabetes and elevated A1cs. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to either: (1) invitation to participate in a series of SMAs totaling 8-9 h; or (2) continuation of usual care. Relative change in A1c (primary outcome) and in systolic blood pressure, insulin starts, statin starts, and anti-hypertensive medication classes (secondary outcomes) were measured as part of usual clinical care at baseline, at 6 months and at 12 months (~7 months after conclusion of the final SMA in four of five sites). We examined outcomes in three samples of SMA participants: all those scheduled for a SMA, those attending at least one SMA, and those attending at least half of SMAs.

Results

Baseline mean A1c was 9.0%. Participants scheduled for an SMA achieved A1c reductions 0.35% points greater than the control group between baseline and 6-months follow up (p = .001). Those who attended at least one SMA achieved reductions 0.42 % points greater (p < .001), and those who attended at least half of scheduled SMAs achieved reductions 0.53 % points greater (p < .001) than the control group. At 12-month follow-up, the three SMA analysis samples achieved reductions from baseline ranging from 0.16 % points (p = 0.12) to 0.29 % points (p = .06) greater than the control group.

Conclusions

Diabetes SMAs as implemented in real-life diverse clinical practices improve glycemic control more than usual care immediately after the SMAs, but relative gains are not maintained. Our findings suggest the need for further study of whether a longer term SMA model or other follow-up strategies would sustain relative clinical improvements associated with this intervention.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02132676.

SUBMITTER: Heisler M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8175536 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In Shared Medical Appointments (SMAs), patients with similar conditions meet the physician together and each receives one-on-one attention. SMAs can improve outcomes and physician productivity. Yet privacy concerns have stymied adoption. In physician-deprived nations, patients' utility from improved access may outweigh their disutility from loss of privacy. Ours is to our knowledge the first SMA trial for any disease, in India, where doctors are scarce. In a 1,000-patient, single-site, randomized controlled trial at Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, we compared SMAs and one-on-one appointments, over four successive visits, for patients with glaucoma. We examined patients' satisfaction, knowledge, intention-to-follow-up, follow-up rates, and medication compliance rates (primary outcomes) using intention-to-treat analysis. Of 1,034 patients invited between July 12, 2016 -July 19, 2018, 1,000 (96.7%) consented to participate, and were randomly assigned to either SMAs (NSMA = 500) or one-on-one appointments (N1-1 = 500). Patients who received SMAs showed higher satisfaction (MeanSMA = 4.955 (SD 0.241), Mean1-1 = 4.920 (SD 0.326); difference in means 0.035; 95% CI, 0.017-0.054, p = 0.0002) and knowledge (MeanSMA = 3.416 (SD 1.340), Mean1-1 = 3.267 (SD 1.492); difference in means 0.149; 95% CI, 0.057-0.241, p = 0.002) than patients who received one-on-one appointments. Across conditions, there was no difference in patients' intention-to-follow-up (MeanSMA = 4.989 (SD 0.118), Mean1-1 = 4.986 (SD 0.149); difference in means 0.003; 95% CI, -0.006-0.012, p = 0.481) and actual follow-up rates (MeanSMA = 87.5% (SD 0.372), Mean1-1 = 88.7% (SD 0.338); difference in means -0.012; 95% CI, -0.039-0.015, p = 0.377). Patients who received SMAs exhibited higher medication compliance rates (MeanSMA = 97.0% (SD 0.180), Mean1-1 = 94.9% (SD 0.238); difference in means 0.020; 95% CI, 0.004-0.036, p = 0.013). SMAs improved satisfaction, learning, and medication compliance, without compromising follow-up rates or measured clinical outcomes. Peer interruptions were negatively correlated with patient satisfaction in early-trial SMAs and positively correlated with patient satisfaction in later-trial SMAs. Trial registration: The trial was registered with Clinical Trials Registry of India (https://ctri.nic.in/) with reference no. REF/2016/11/012659 and registration no. CTRI/2018/02/011998.

Project description:BackgroundShared medical appointments (SMAs) have been shown to be an efficient and effective strategy for providing diabetes self-management education and self-management support. SMA features vary and it is not known which features are most effective for different patients and practice settings. The Invested in Diabetes study tests the comparative effectiveness of SMAs with and without multidisciplinary care teams and patient topic choice for improving patient-centered and clinical outcomes related to diabetes.MethodsThis study compares the effectiveness of two SMA approaches using the Targeted Training for Illness Management (TTIM) curriculum. Standardized SMAs are led by a health educator with a set order of TTIM topics. Patient-driven SMAs are delivered collaboratively by a multidisciplinary care team (health educator, medical provider, behavioral health provider, and a peer mentor); patients select the order and emphasis on TTIM topics. Invested in Diabetes is a cluster randomized pragmatic trial involving approximately 1440 adult patients with type 2 diabetes. Twenty primary care practices will be randomly assigned to either standardized or patient-driven SMAs. A mixed-methods evaluation will include quantitative (practice- and patient-level data) and qualitative (practice and patient interviews, observation) components. The primary patient-centered outcome is diabetes distress. Secondary outcomes include autonomy support, self-management behaviors, clinical outcomes, patient reach, and practice-level value and sustainability.DiscussionPractice and patient stakeholder input guided protocol development for this pragmatic trial comparing SMA approaches. Implementation strategies from the enhanced Replicating Effective Programs framework will help ensure practices maintain fidelity to intervention protocols while tailoring workflows to their settings. Invested in Diabetes will contribute to the literature on chronic illness management and implementation science using the RE-AIM model.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03590041. Registered on 5 July 2018.

Project description:Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.ISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).

Project description:BackgroundAcceptability of mobile phone text messaging as a means of asynchronous communication between health care systems and patients is growing. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has adopted an automated texting system (aTS) for national rollout. The aTS allows providers to develop clinical texting protocols to promote patient self-management and allows clinical teams to monitor patient progress between in-person visits. Texting-supported hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment has not been previously tested.ObjectiveGuided by the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), we developed an aTS HCV protocol and conducted a mixed methods, hybrid type 2 effectiveness implementation study comparing two programs supporting implementation of the aTS HCV protocol for medication adherence in patients with HCV.MethodsSeven VA HCV specialty clinics were randomized to usual aTS implementation versus an augmented implementation facilitation program. Implementation process measures included facilitation metrics, usability, and usefulness. Implementation outcomes included provider and patient use of the aTS HCV protocol, and effectiveness outcomes included medication adherence, health perceptions and behaviors, and sustained virologic response (SVR).ResultsAcross the seven randomized clinics, there were 293 facilitation events using a core set of nine implementation strategies (157 events in augmented implementation facilitation, 136 events in usual implementation). Providers found the aTS appropriate with high potential for scale-up but not without difficulties in startup, patient selection and recruitment, and clinic workflow integration. Patients largely found the aTS easy to use and helpful; however, low perceived need for self-management support contributed to high declination. Reach and use was modest with 197 patients approached, 71 (36%) enrolled, 50 (25%) authenticated, and 32 (16%) using the aTS. In augmented implementation facilitation clinics, more patients actively used the aTS HCV protocol compared with usual clinic patients (20% vs 12%). Patients who texted reported lower distress about failing HCV treatment (13/15, 87%, vs 8/15, 53%; P=.05) and better adherence to HCV medication (11/15, 73%, reporting excellent adherence vs 6/15, 40%; P=.06), although SVR did not differ by group.ConclusionsThe aTS is a promising intervention for improving patient self-management; however, augmented approaches to implementation may be needed to support clinician buy-in and patient engagement. Considering the behavioral, social, organizational, and technical scale-up challenges that we documented, successful and sustained implementation of the aTS may require implementation strategies that operate at the clinic, provider, and patient levels.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03898349; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03898349.