Dataset Information

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial referring to a Personalised Self-management SUPport Programme (P-SUP) for persons enrolled in a disease management programme for type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or for coronary heart disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary heart disease (CHD) are two chronic diseases that cause a tremendous burden. To reduce this burden, several programmes for optimising the care for these diseases have been developed. In Germany, so-called disease management programmes (DMPs), which combine components of Disease Management and the Chronic Care Model, are applied. These DMPs have proven effective. Nevertheless, there are opportunities for improvement. Current DMPs rarely address self-management of the disease, make no use of peer support, and provide no special assistance for persons with low health literacy and/or low patient activation. The study protocol presented here is for the evaluation of a programme that addresses these possible shortcomings and can be combined with current German DMPs for T2DM and CHD. This programme consists of four components: 1) Meetings of peer support groups 2) Personalised telephone-based health coaching for patients with low literacy and/or low patient activation 3) Personalised patient feedback 4) A browser-based web portal METHODS: Study participants will be adults enrolled in a DMP for T2DM and/or CHD and living in North Rhine-Westphalia, a state of the Federal Republic of Germany. Study participants will be recruited with the assistance of their general practitioners by the end of June 2021. Evaluation will be performed as a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with one intervention group and one waiting control group. The intervention group will receive the intervention for 18 months. During this time, the waiting control group will continue with usual care and the usual measures of their DMPs. After 18 months, the waiting control group will also receive a shortened intervention. The primary outcome is number of hospital days. In addition, the effects on self-reported health-state, physical activity, nutrition, and eight different psychological variables will be investigated. Differences between values at month 18 and at the beginning will be compared to judge the effectiveness of the intervention.

Discussion

If the intervention proves effective, it may be included into the DMPs for T2DM and CHD.

Trial registration

The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS)) in early 2019 under the number 00020592. This registry has been affiliated with the WHO Clinical Trials Network ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do ) since 2008. It is based on the WHO template, but contains some additional categories for which information has to be given ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=entryfields&messageDE=Beschreibung%20der%20Eingabefelder&messageEN=Description%20of%20entry%20fields ). A release and subsequent number assignment only take place when information for all categories has been given.

SUBMITTER: Konerding U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8475316 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Chronic diseases represent a major challenge for health care and social services. A number of people with chronic diseases require more services due to characteristics that increase their vulnerability. Given the burden of increasingly vulnerable patients on primary care, a pragmatic intervention in four Family Medicine Groups (primary care practices in Quebec, Canada) has been proposed for individuals with chronic diseases (diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, musculoskeletal diseases and/or chronic pain) who are frequent users of hospital services. The intervention combines case management by a nurse with group support meetings encouraging self-management based on the Stanford Chronic Disease Self-Management Program. The goals of this study are to: (1) analyze the implementation of the intervention in the participating practices in order to determine how the various contexts have influenced the implementation and the observed effects; (2) evaluate the proximal (self-efficacy, self-management, health habits, activation and psychological distress) and intermediate (empowerment, quality of life and health care use) effects of the intervention on patients; (3) conduct an economic analysis of the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.The analysis of the implementation will be conducted using realistic evaluation and participatory approaches within four categories of stakeholders (Family Medicine Group and health centre management, Family Medicine Group practitioners, patients and their families, health centre or community partners). The data will be obtained through individual and group interviews, project documentation reviews and by documenting the intervention. Evaluation of the effects on patients will be based on a pragmatic randomized before-after experimental design with a delayed intervention control group (six months). Economic analysis will include cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis.The integration of a case management intervention delivered by nurses and self-management group support into primary care practices has the potential to positively impact patient empowerment and quality of life and hopefully reduce the burden on health care. Decision-makers, managers and health care professionals will be aware of the factors to consider in promoting the implementation of this intervention into other primary care practices in the region and elsewhere.NCT01719991.

Project description:BackgroundExercise therapy is safe and effective in people with single conditions, but the feasibility in people with two or more conditions is unclear. Therefore, the aim was to evaluate the feasibility of exercise therapy and self-management in people with multimorbidity prior to a randomised, controlled trial (RCT).MethodsThis was a mixed-methods feasibility study performed in two general hospitals and one psychiatric hospital. 20 adult patients (8 females; mean age (SD) 67 (6.9)) with at least two long-term conditions and a score of ≥ 3 on Disease Burden Impact Scale for at least one condition (at least moderate limitations of daily activities) and of ≥ 2 for at least one other condition. Patients with unstable health conditions, at risk of serious adverse events (SAE) or with terminal conditions were excluded. Participants received 12 weeks of exercise (18 60-min group-based and 6 home-based sessions) and self-management support (6 90-min group-based sessions) supervised by physiotherapists. Pre-defined progression to RCT criteria were the primary outcomes and included recruitment rate (acceptable 20 participants in 3 months), retention through follow-up (75% retention), compliance (75% complete > 9 of exercise and > 3 self-management sessions), outcome burden (80% do not find outcomes too burdensome), improvement in quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and function (6-min walk test; ≥ 50% experience clinically relevant improvements) and intervention-related SAEs (No SAEs). Furthermore, a purposeful sample including eleven participants and two facilitators were interviewed about their experiences of participating/facilitating. Qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsRecruitment rate (20 in 49 days), retention (85%), outcome burden (95%), and SAEs (0 related to intervention) were acceptable, while compliance (70%) and improvements (35% in quality of life, 46% in function) were not (amendment needed before proceeding to RCT). The intervention was found acceptable by both participants and physiotherapists with some barriers among participants relating to managing multiple chronic conditions while caring for others or maintaining a job. Physiotherapists expressed a need for additional training.ConclusionsExercise therapy and self-management are feasible in people with multimorbidity. The subsequent RCT, amending the intervention according to progression criteria and feedback, will determine whether the intervention is superior to usual care alone.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04645732 Open Science Framework https://osf.io/qk6yg/.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveMost adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the United States are cared for by primary care providers (PCPs). We evaluated the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of an electronic clinical decision support system (eCDSS) within the electronic health record with or without pharmacist follow-up to improve the management of CKD in primary care.Study designPragmatic cluster-randomized trial.Setting & participants524 adults with confirmed creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rates of 30 to 59mL/min/1.73m2 cared for by 80 PCPs at the University of California San Francisco. Electronic health record data were used for patient identification, intervention deployment, and outcomes ascertainment.InterventionsEach PCP's eligible patients were randomly assigned as a group into 1 of 3 treatment arms: (1) usual care; (2) eCDSS: testing of creatinine, cystatin C, and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio with individually tailored guidance for PCPs on blood pressure, potassium, and proteinuria management, cardiovascular risk reduction, and patient education; or (3) eCDSS plus pharmacist counseling (eCDSS-PLUS).OutcomesThe primary clinical outcome was change in blood pressure over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were PCP awareness of CKD and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and statin therapy.ResultsAll 80 eligible PCPs participated. Mean patient age was 70 years, 47% were nonwhite, and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 56±0.6mL/min/1.73m2. Among patients receiving eCDSS with or without pharmacist counseling (n=336), 178 (53%) completed laboratory measurements and 138 (41%) had laboratory measurements followed by a PCP visit with eCDSS deployment. eCDSS was opened by the PCP for 102 (74%) patients, with at least 1 suggested order signed for 83 of these 102 (81%). Changes in systolic blood pressure were-2.1±1.5mm Hg with usual care, -2.8±1.8mm Hg with eCDSS, and -1.1±1.1 with eCDSS-PLUS (P=0.7). PCP awareness of CKD was 16% with usual care, 26% with eCDSS, and 32% for eCDSS-PLUS (P=0.09). In as-treated analyses, PCP awareness of CKD was significantly greater with eCDSS and eCDSS-PLUS (73% and 69%) versus usual care (47%; P=0.002).LimitationsRecruitment of smaller than intended sample size and limited uptake of the testing component of the intervention.ConclusionsAlthough we were unable to demonstrate the effectiveness of eCDSS to lower blood pressure and uptake of the eCDSS was limited by low testing rates, eCDSS use was high when laboratory measurements were available and was associated with higher PCP awareness of CKD.FundingGrants from government (National Institutes of Health) and not-for-profit (American Heart Association) entities.Trial registrationRegistered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT02925962.

Project description:IntroductionThe optimal approach to screening and risk stratification for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is challenging given disease burden and variable progression. The aim of this study was to assess primary care physician and referring physician practice patterns regarding non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.MethodsAn anonymous nationwide survey was administered to primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and cardiologists in a: (1) tertiary academic hospital, (2) community hospital, and (3) the American College of Physicians Insider Panel. Survey domains assessed non-alcoholic fatty liver disease knowledge, recommendations for screening, risk stratification, treatment, and referral patterns.ResultsA total of 440 providers completed the survey (35.2% completion rate; N = 82 academic hospital, N = 21 community hospital, N = 337 American College of Physicians). Half were male (51.7%), 78% from internal medicine, with 5% subspecialists. Providers were knowledgeable regarding prevalence and risk factors for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. 58% would support screening for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and used liver enzymes to do so. Only 22.5% used serum biomarkers and 23% used transient elastography for risk stratification. Primary reason for referral was advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis. 80% reported barriers to treating non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. There was no consistent diet recommended.ConclusionIn this nationwide survey, we demonstrated that while overall disease knowledge was good, there was an important disconnect between current guidelines and real-world clinical practice. There is also significant heterogeneity in practice patterns for first-line therapy of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and the majority of provider's report barriers to treating non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. These findings highlight the potential role for reevaluating screening and risk stratification recommendations in primary care to better align with needs in that setting.