Dataset Information

Meta Salud Diabetes for cardiovascular disease prevention in Mexico: a cluster-randomized behavioural clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Healthy lifestyle interventions offered at points of care, including support groups, may improve chronic disease management, especially in low-resource populations. We assessed the effectiveness of an educational intervention in type 2 diabetes (T2D) support groups to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

Methods

We recruited 518 participants to a parallel, two-arm, cluster-randomized, behavioural clinical trial across 22 clinics in Sonora, Mexico, between August 2016 and October 2018. We delivered a 13-week secondary prevention intervention, Meta Salud Diabetes (MSD), within the structure of a support group (GAM: Grupo de Ayuda Mutua) in government-run (community) Health Centres (Centros de Salud). The primary study outcomes were difference in Framingham CVD risk scores and hypertension between intervention (GAM+MSD) and control (GAM usual care) arms at 3 and 12 months.

Results

CVD risk was 3.17% age-points lower in the MSD arm versus control at 3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): -5.60, -0.75, P = 0.013); at 12 months the difference was 2.13% age-points (95% CI: -4.60, 0.34, P = 0.088). There was no evidence of a difference in hypertension rates between arms. Diabetes distress was also lower at 3 and 12 months in the MSD arm. Post-hoc analyses showed greater CVD risk reduction among men than women and among participants with HbA1c < 8.

Conclusions

MSD contributed to a positive trend in reducing CVD risk in a low-resource setting. This study introduced an evidence-based curriculum that provides T2D self-management strategies for those with controlled T2D (i.e. HbA1c < 8.0) and may improve quality of life.

SUBMITTER: Rosales CB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8633640 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Northern Mexico has among the highest rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes in the world. This research addresses core gaps in implementation science to develop, test and scale-up CVD risk-reduction interventions in diabetics through a national primary care health system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Meta Salud Diabetes (MSD) research project is a parallel two-arm cluster-randomised clinical behavioural trial based in 22 (n=22) health centres in Sonora, Mexico. MSD aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the MSD intervention for the secondary prevention of CVD risk factors among a diabetic population (n=320) compared with the study control of usual care. The MSD intervention consists of 2-hour class sessions delivered over a 13-week period providing educational information to encourage sustainable behavioural change to prevent disease complications including the adoption of physical activity. MSD is delivered within the context of Mexico's national primary care health centre system by health professionals, including nurses, physicians and community health workers via existing social support groups for individuals diagnosed with chronic disease. Mixed models are used to estimate the effect of MSD by comparing cardiovascular risk, as measured by the Framingham Risk Score, between the trial arms. Secondary outcomes include hypertension, behavioural risk factors and psychosocial factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This work is supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (1R01HL125996-01) and approved by the University of Arizona Research Institutional Review Board (Protocol 1508040144) and the Research Bioethics Committee at the University of Sonora. The first Internal Review Board approval date was 31 August 2015 with five subsequent approved amendments. This article refers to protocol V.0.2, dated 30 January 2017. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and presentation at international conferences and will be shared through meetings with health systems officials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT0280469; Pre-results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo test whether community mobilization adds effectiveness to conventional dengue control.DesignPragmatic open label parallel group cluster randomized controlled trial. Those assessing the outcomes and analyzing the data were blinded to group assignment. Centralized computerized randomization after the baseline study allocated half the sites to intervention, stratified by country, evidence of recent dengue virus infection in children aged 3-9, and vector indices.SettingRandom sample of communities in Managua, capital of Nicaragua, and three coastal regions in Guerrero State in the south of Mexico.ParticipantsResidents in a random sample of census enumeration areas across both countries: 75 intervention and 75 control clusters (about 140 households each) were randomized and analyzed (60 clusters in Nicaragua and 90 in Mexico), including 85,182 residents in 18,838 households.InterventionsA community mobilization protocol began with community discussion of baseline results. Each intervention cluster adapted the basic intervention-chemical-free prevention of mosquito reproduction-to its own circumstances. All clusters continued the government run dengue control program.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes per protocol were self reported cases of dengue, serological evidence of recent dengue virus infection, and conventional entomological indices (house index: households with larvae or pupae/households examined; container index: containers with larvae or pupae/containers examined; Breteau index: containers with larvae or pupae/households examined; and pupae per person: pupae found/number of residents). Per protocol secondary analysis examined the effect of Camino Verde in the context of temephos use.ResultsWith cluster as the unit of analysis, serological evidence from intervention sites showed a lower risk of infection with dengue virus in children (relative risk reduction 29.5%, 95% confidence interval 3.8% to 55.3%), fewer reports of dengue illness (24.7%, 1.8% to 51.2%), fewer houses with larvae or pupae among houses visited (house index) (44.1%, 13.6% to 74.7%), fewer containers with larvae or pupae among containers examined (container index) (36.7%, 24.5% to 44.8%), fewer containers with larvae or pupae among houses visited (Breteau index) (35.1%, 16.7% to 55.5%), and fewer pupae per person (51.7%, 36.2% to 76.1%). The numbers needed to treat were 30 (95% confidence interval 20 to 59) for a lower risk of infection in children, 71 (48 to 143) for fewer reports of dengue illness, 17 (14 to 20) for the house index, 37 (35 to 67) for the container index, 10 (6 to 29) for the Breteau index, and 12 (7 to 31) for fewer pupae per person. Secondary per protocol analysis showed no serological evidence of a protective effect of temephos.ConclusionsEvidence based community mobilization can add effectiveness to dengue vector control. Each site implementing the intervention in its own way has the advantage of local customization and strong community engagement.Trial registrationISRCTN27581154.

Project description:PURPOSE: Targeted interventions to reduce the risk and increase the early detection of melanoma have the potential to save lives. We aimed to assess the effect of such an intervention on patient prevention behavior. METHODS: We conducted a pilot clustered randomized controlled trial, comparing a targeted screening and education intervention with a conventional information-based campaign in 20 private surgeries in western France. In the intervention group, 10 general practitioners identified patients at elevated risk for melanoma with a validated assessment tool, the Self-Assessment Melanoma Risk Score (SAMScore), examined their skin, and counseled them using information leaflets. In the control group, 10 general practitioners displayed a poster and the leaflets in their waiting room and examined patients' skin at their own discretion. The main outcome measures were sunbathing and skin self-examinations among patients at elevated risk, assessed 5 months later with a questionnaire. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 173 patients. Compared with control patients, intervention patients were more likely to remember the campaign (81.4% vs 50.0%, P = .0001) and to correctly identify their elevated risk of melanoma (71.1% vs 42.1%, P = .001). Furthermore, intervention patients had higher levels of prevention behaviors: they were less likely to sunbathe in the summer (24.7% vs 40.8%, P = .048) and more likely to have performed skin self-examinations in the past year (52.6% vs 36.8%, P = .029). The intervention was not associated with any clear adverse effects, although there were trends whereby intervention patients were more likely to worry about melanoma and to consult their general practitioner again about the disease. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of use of the SAMScore and general practitioner examination and counseling during consultations is an efficient way to promote patient behaviors that may reduce melanoma risk. Extending the duration of follow-up and demonstrating an impact on morbidity and mortality remain major issues for further research.

Project description:Many individuals at higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) do not receive recommended treatments. Prior interventions using personalized risk information to promote prevention did not test clinic-wide effectiveness.To perform a 9-month cluster-randomized trial, comparing a strategy of electronic health record-based identification of patients with increased CVD risk and individualized mailed outreach to usual care.Patients of participating physicians with a Framingham Risk Score of at least 5 %, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol level above guideline threshold for drug treatment, and not prescribed a lipid-lowering medication were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.Patients of physicians randomized to the intervention group were mailed individualized CVD risk messages that described benefits of using a statin (and controlling hypertension or quitting smoking when relevant).The primary outcome was occurrence of a LDL-cholesterol level, repeated in routine practice, that was at least 30 mg/dl lower than prior. A secondary outcome was lipid-lowering drug prescribing. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01286311.Fourteen physicians with 218 patients were randomized to intervention, and 15 physicians with 217 patients to control. The mean patient age was 60.7 years and 77% were male. There was no difference in the primary outcome (11.0 % vs. 11.1 %, OR 0.99, 95 % CI 0.56-1.74, P?=?0.96), but intervention group patients were twice as likely to receive a prescription for lipid-lowering medication (11.9 %, vs. 6.0 %, OR 2.13, 95 % CI 1.05-4.32, p?=?0.038). In post hoc analysis with extended follow-up to 18 months, the primary outcome occurred more often in the intervention group (22.5 % vs. 16.1 %, OR 1.59, 95 % CI 1.05-2.41, P?=?0.029).In this effectiveness trial, individualized mailed CVD risk messages increased the frequency of new lipid-lowering drug prescriptions, but we observed no difference in proportions lowering LDL-cholesterol after 9 months. With longer follow-up, the intervention's effect on LDL-cholesterol levels was apparent.

Project description:Implementation fidelity describes how well an intervention is implemented in the real-world setting. Assessing implementation fidelity is essential in the understanding of intervention results. In most studies, implementation fidelity is measured insufficiently, though, not taking into account the complexity of the concept nor the intervention. The objective of the present study was to develop an overall quantitative measure of implementation fidelity, to examine the degree of implementation fidelity and the association of implementation and effect of a randomized school-based smoking prevention trial-the X:IT study.A cluster-randomized trial testing is a multi-component intervention to prevent smoking among adolescents in 94 Danish elementary schools (51 intervention, 43 control schools). Participants were grade 7 pupils (mean age 12.5 years). Data was collected by electronic questionnaires among pupils at baseline (n = 4161), the first follow-up (n = 3764), and the second follow-up (n = 3269) and among school coordinators at intervention schools at the first and second follow-up (50 and 39 coordinators).The intervention included three components: (1) smoke-free school grounds, (2) smoke-free curriculum, and (3) parental involvement, contracts, and dialogues. Implementation fidelity was assessed by four domains: adherence, dose, quality of delivery, and participant responsiveness. These were combined into an overall school-wise implementation index. The association of implementation and smoking was examined by logistic regression analyses.One fourth of the schools was characterized as high implementers of the program (all three components) at both first (12 schools, 24.0 %) and second follow-up (11 schools, 28.2 %). Implementation fidelity was strongly associated with smoking at the first and second follow-up, e.g., the odds for smoking at schools with high implementation both years were OR = 0.44 (95 % CI 0.32 to 0.68).Using an overall measure based on several aspects of implementation fidelity, we showed a negative graded association between implementation and smoking. This study suggests that higher degrees of implementation will improve the effect of the X:IT intervention. Studying the association between implementation and effect is extremely important; only by doing so, we can distinguish the quality of the intervention from the success of the implementation.Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77415416.

Project description:The Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS) was a randomized controlled trial, which showed that it is possible to prevent type 2 diabetes by lifestyle changes. The aim of the present study was to examine whether the lifestyle intervention had an effect on the ten-year mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in the DPS participants originally randomized either into an intervention or control group. Furthermore, we compared these results with a population-based cohort comprising individuals of varying glucose tolerance states.Middle-aged, overweight people with IGT (n = 522) were randomized into intensive intervention (including physical activity, weight reduction and dietary counseling), or control "mini-intervention" group. Median length of the intervention period was 4 years and the mean follow-up was 10.6 years. The population-based reference study cohort included 1881 individuals (1570 with normal glucose tolerance, 183 with IGT, 59 with screen-detected type 2 diabetes, 69 with previously known type 2 diabetes) with the mean follow-up of 13.8 years. Mortality and cardiovascular morbidity data were collected from the national Hospital Discharge Register and Causes of Death Register. Among the DPS participants who consented for register linkage (n = 505), total mortality (2.2 vs. 3.8 per 1000 person years, hazard ratio HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.21-1.58) and cardiovascular morbidity (22.9 vs. 22.0 per 1000 person years, HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.72-1.51) did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups. Compared with the population-based cohort with impaired glucose tolerance, adjusted HRs were 0.21 (95% CI 0.09-0.52) and 0.39 (95% CI 0.20-0.79) for total mortality, and 0.89 (95% CI 0.62-1.27) and 0.87 (0.60-1.27) for cardiovascular morbidity in the intervention and control groups of the DPS, respectively. The risk of death in DPS combined cohort was markedly lower than in FINRISK IGT cohort (adjusted HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.54), but there was no significant difference in the risk of CVD (adjusted HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64-1.21).Lifestyle intervention among persons with IGT did not decrease cardiovascular morbidity during the first 10 years of follow-up. However, the statistical power may not be sufficient to detect small differences between the intervention and control groups. Low total mortality among participants of the DPS compared with individuals with IGT in the general population could be ascribed to a lower cardiovascular risk profile at baseline and regular follow-up.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00518167.