Dataset Information

Development and evaluation of self-care intervention to improve self-care practices among people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a mixed-methods study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The management of diabetes mellitus (DM) depends on medication adherence, self-care and regular follow-up to prevent complications and premature mortality. This study aims to develop and implement the behavioural change theory and model based diabetes self-care intervention package to improve self-care practices among people living with type 2 DM.

Methods and analysis

An exploratory sequential mixed-method study design wherein, quantitative follows qualitative will be used to develop, implement and evaluate the effect of diabetes self-care intervention package among people living with type 2 diabetes. The qualitative research method will be used to identify barriers and facilitators for self-care practices among people living with type 2 DM and will also provide the basis for the development of the diabetes self-care intervention package. The quasi-experimental with control study design will be used to evaluate the developed intervention package among 220 randomly selected people living with type 2 diabetes in both intervention and control arms. Baseline, follow-ups and endline data will be collected using same prevalidated and structured questionnaire for each self-care activity. Difference-in-difference analysis will be used to measure for changes in the proportion of people living with type 2 DM doing different component of self-care practices, preintervention and postintervention in both arms.

Ethics and dissemination

Permission for conducting the study has been taken from Institutional Ethical Committee of PGIMER, Chandigarh (Ref no. NK/4538/PhD/226, Dated 18.08.18). The findings of the trial will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number

CTRI/2018/10/016108; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Gupta SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8252870 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInconsistent hand hygiene puts people who inject drugs (PWID) at high risk of infectious diseases, in particular skin and soft tissue infections. In healthcare settings, handwashing with alcohol-based hand rubs (ABRH) is recommended before aseptic procedures including intravenous injections. We aimed to evaluate the acceptability, safety and preliminary efficacy of an intervention combining ABHR provision and educational training for PWID.MethodsA mixed-methods design was used including a pre-post quantitative study and a qualitative study. Participants were active PWID recruited in 4 harm reduction programmes of France and followed up for 6 weeks. After baseline assessment, participants received a face-to-face educational intervention. ABHR was then provided throughout the study period. Quantitative data were collected through questionnaires at baseline, and weeks 2 (W2) and 6 (W6) post-intervention. Qualitative data were collected through focus groups with participants who completed the 6-week study.ResultsAmong the 59 participants included, 48 (81%) and 43 (73%) attended W2 and W6 visits, respectively. ABHR acceptability was high and adoption rates were 50% (W2) and 61% (W6). Only a minority of participants reported adverse skin reactions (ranging from 2 to 6%). Preliminary efficacy of the intervention was shown through increased hand hygiene frequency (multivariable linear mixed model: coef. W2 = 0.58, p = 0.002; coef. W6 = 0.61, p = 0.002) and fewer self-reported injecting-related infections (multivariable logistic mixed model: AOR W6 = 0.23, p = 0.021). Two focus groups were conducted with 10 participants and showed that young PWID and those living in unstable housing benefited most from the intervention.ConclusionsABHR for hand hygiene prior to injection are acceptable to and safe for PWID, particularly those living in unstable housing. The intervention's educational component was crucial to ensure adoption of safe practices. We also provide preliminary evidence of the intervention's efficacy through increased hand hygiene frequency and a reduced risk of infection.

Project description:IntroductionOlder Canadians living with frailty are high users of healthcare services; however, the healthcare system is not well designed to meet the complex needs of many older adults. Older persons look to their primary care practitioners to assess their needs and coordinate their care. They may need care from a variety of providers and services, but often this care is not well coordinated. Older adults and their family caregivers are the experts in their own needs and preferences, but often do not have a chance to participate fully in treatment decisions or care planning. As a result, older adults may have health problems that are not properly assessed, managed or treated, resulting in poorer health outcomes and higher economic and social costs. We will be implementing enhanced primary healthcare approaches for older patients, including risk screening, patient engagement and shared decision making and care coordination. These interventions will be tailored to the needs and circumstances of the primary care study sites. In this article, we describe our study protocol for implementing and testing these approaches.Methods and analysisNine primary care sites in three Canadian provinces will participate in a multi-phase mixed methods study. In phase 1, baseline information will be collected through questionnaires and interviews with patients and healthcare providers (HCPs). In phase 2, HCPs and patients will be consulted to tailor the evidence-based interventions to site-specific needs and circumstances. In phase 3, sites will implement the tailored care model. Evaluation of the care model will include measures of patient and provider experience, a quality of life measure, qualitative interviews and economic evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThis study has received ethics clearance from the host academic institutions: University of Calgary (REB17-0617), University of Waterloo (ORE#22446) and Université Laval (#MP-13-2019-1500 and 2017-2018-12-MP). Results will be disseminated through traditional means, including peer-reviewed publications and conferences and through an extensive network of knowledge user partners.Trial registration numberNCT03442426;Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundVertigo, dizziness and balance disorders (VDB) are common in older people and cause restrictions in mobility and social participation. Due to a multifactorial aetiology, health care is often overutilised, but many patients are also treated insufficiently in primary care. The purpose of this study was to develop a care pathway as a complex intervention to improve mobility and participation in older people with VDB in primary care.MethodsThe development process followed the UK Medical Research Council guidance using a mixed-methods design with individual and group interviews carried out with patients, physical therapists (PTs), general practitioners (GPs), nurses working in community care and a multi-professional expert panel to create a first draft of a care pathway (CPW) and implementation strategy using the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research and the Expert recommendations for Implementing Change. Subsequently, small expert group modelling of specific components of the CPW was carried out, with GPs, medical specialists and PTs. The Behaviour Change Wheel was applied to design the intervention´s approach to behaviour change. To derive theoretical assumptions, we adopted Kellogg´s Logic Model to consolidate the hypothesized chain of causes leading to patient-relevant outcomes.ResultsIndividual interviews with patients showed that VDB symptoms need to be taken more seriously by GPs. Patients demanded age-specific treatment offers, group sessions or a continuous mentoring by a PT. GPs required a specific guideline for diagnostics and treatment options including psychosocial interventions. Specific assignment to and a standardized approach during physical therapy were desired by PTs. Nurses favoured a multi-professional documentation system. The structured three-day expert workshop resulted in a first draft of CPW and potential implementation strategies. Subsequent modelling resulted in a CPW with components and appropriate training materials for involved health professionals. A specific implementation strategy is now available.ConclusionA mixed-methods design was suggested to be a suitable approach to develop a complex intervention and its implementation strategy. We will subsequently test the intervention for its acceptability and feasibility in a feasibility study accompanied by a comprehensive process evaluation to inform a subsequent effectiveness trial.Trial registrationThe research project is registered in "Projektdatenbank Versorgungsforschung Deutschland" (Project-ID: VfD_MobilE-PHY_17_003910; date of registration: 30.11.2017).

Project description:Objectives(A) To measure the extent to which different candidate outcome measures identified high-risk prescribing that is potentially changeable by the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention.(B) To explore the value of reviewing identified high-risk prescribing to clinicians.(C) To optimise the components of the DQIP intervention.DesignMixed method study.SettingGeneral practices in two Scottish Health boards.Participants4 purposively sampled general practices of varying size and socioeconomic deprivation.Outcome measuresPrescribing measures targeting (1) high-risk use of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antiplatelets; (2) 'Asthma control' and (3) 'Antithrombotics in atrial fibrillation (AF)'.InterventionThe prescribing measures were used to identify patients for review by general practices. The ability of the measures to identify potentially changeable high-risk prescribing was measured as the proportion of patients reviewed where practices identified a need for action. Field notes were recorded from meetings between researchers and staff and key staff participated in semistructured interviews exploring their experience of the piloted intervention processes.ResultsPractices identified a need for action in 68%, 25% and 18% of patients reviewed for prescribing measures (1), (2) and (3), respectively. General practitioners valued being prompted to review patients, and perceived that (1) 'NSAID and antiplatelet' and (2) 'antithrombotics in AF' were the most important to act on. Barriers to initial and ongoing engagement and to sustaining improvements in prescribing were identified.Conclusions'NSAIDs and antiplatelets' measures were selected as the most suitable outcome measures for the DQIP trial, based on evidence of this prescribing being more easily changeable. In response to the barriers identified, the intervention was designed to include a financial incentive, additional ongoing feedback on progress and reprompting review of patients, whose high-risk prescribing was restarted after a decision to stop.Trial registration numberClinicaltrials.gov NCT01425502.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of implementing a self-management intervention to improve mobility in the community for stroke survivors.MethodsA two-phase sequential mixed methods design was used (a pilot randomised controlled trial and focus groups). Participants were adult stroke survivors within six months post discharge from hospital with functional and cognitive capacity for self-management. The intervention included education sessions, goal setting and action planning, group sessions, self-monitoring and follow up. The control group received usual care and both groups enrolled for 3 months in the study. Feasibility outcomes (recruitment and retention rates, randomisation and blinding, adherence to the intervention, collection of outcome measures, and the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention). Participants assessed at baseline, 3 months and 6 months for functional mobility and walking, self-efficacy, goal attainment, cognitive ability, and general health. A descriptive analysis was done for quantitative data and content analysis for the qualitative data. Findings of quantitative and qualitative data were integrated to present the final results of the study.ResultsTwenty-four participants were recruited and randomised into two groups (12 each). It was feasible to recruit from hospital and community and to deliver the intervention remotely. Randomisation and blinding were successful. Participants were retained (83%) at 3 months and (79.2%) at 6 months assessments. Adherence to the intervention varied due to multiple factors. Focus groups discussed participants' motivations for joining the programme, their perspectives on the intervention (fidelity and acceptability) and methodology, perceived improvements in mobility, facilitators and challenges for self-management, and suggestions for improvement.ConclusionThe self-management intervention seems feasible for implementation for stroke survivors in the community. Participants appreciated the support provided and perceived improvement in their mobility. The study was not powered enough to draw a conclusion about the efficacy of the program and a future full-scale study is warranted.