Dataset Information

Do quality improvement initiatives for diabetes care address social inequities? Secondary analysis of a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Socially disadvantaged populations carry a disproportionate burden of diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. There is an emerging interest in quality improvement (QI) strategies in the care of patients with diabetes, however, the effect of these interventions on disadvantaged groups remains unclear. OBJECTIVE:This is a secondary analysis of a systematic review that seeks to examine the extent of equity considerations in diabetes QI studies, specifically quantifying the proportion of studies that target interventions toward disadvantaged populations and conduct analyses on the impact of interventions on disadvantaged groups. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:Studies were identified using Medline, HealthStar and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care database. Randomised controlled trials assessing 12 QI strategies targeting health systems, healthcare professionals and/or patients for the management of adult outpatients with diabetes were eligible. The place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupational status, gender/sexual identity, religious affiliations, education level, socioeconomic status, social capital, plus age, disability, sexual preferences and relationships (PROGRESS-Plus) framework was used to identify trials that focused on disadvantaged patient populations, to examine the types of equity-relevant factors that are being considered and to explore temporal trends in equity-relevant diabetes QI trials. RESULTS:Of the 278 trials that met the inclusion criteria, 95 trials had equity-relevant considerations. These include 64 targeted trials that focused on a disadvantaged population with the aim to improve the health status of that population and 31 general trials that undertook subgroup analyses to assess the extent to which their interventions may have had differential impacts on disadvantaged subgroups. Trials predominantly focused on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and place of residence as potential factors for disadvantage in patients receiving diabetes care. CONCLUSIONS:Less than one-third of diabetes QI trials included equity-relevant considerations, limiting the relevance and applicability of their data to disadvantaged populations. There is a need for better data collection, reporting, analysis and interventions on the social determinants of health that may influence the health outcomes of patients with diabetes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42013005165.

SUBMITTER: Lu JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5829812 | biostudies-other | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do quality improvement initiatives for diabetes care address social inequities? Secondary analysis of a systematic review.

Lu Jacquie Boyang JB Danko Kristin J KJ Elfassy Michael D MD Welch Vivian V Grimshaw Jeremy M JM Ivers Noah M NM

BMJ open 20180214 2

<h4>Background</h4>Socially disadvantaged populations carry a disproportionate burden of diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. There is an emerging interest in quality improvement (QI) strategies in the care of patients with diabetes, however, the effect of these interventions on disadvantaged groups remains unclear.<h4>Objective</h4>This is a secondary analysis of a systematic review that seeks to examine the extent of equity considerations in diabetes QI studies, specifically quantifying t ...[more]

PMID: 29444781

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesThe EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care was designed to assist primary care practices in the US in implementing evidence-based practices in cardiovascular care and building capacity for quality improvement. EvidenceNOW, NCT03054090, was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 15/02/2017. The goals of this study were to gain a comprehensive understanding of perspectives from research participants and research team members on the value of implementation strategies and factors that influenced the EvidenceNOW initiative in Virginia.MethodsIn 2018, we conducted 25 focus groups with clinicians and staff at participating practices, including 80 physicians, advanced practice clinicians, practice managers and other practice staff. We also conducted face-to-face and telephone interviews with 22 research team members, including lead investigators, practice facilitators, physician expert consultants, and evaluators. We used the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in the Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework in our qualitative data analysis and organization of themes.ResultsImplementation strategies valued by both practice representatives and research team members included the kick-off event, on-site practice facilitation, and interaction with physician expert consultants. Remote practice facilitation and web-based tools were used less frequently. Contextual factors that influence quality improvement efforts include leadership support, access to resources, previous quality improvement experience, and practice ownership type (independent compared to health system owned). Many clinicians and staff were overwhelmed by day-to-day activities and experience initiative fatigue, which hindered their ability to fully participate in the EvidenceNOW initiative.ConclusionsThis study provides details on how the practice environment plays an essential role in the implementation of evidence-based practices in primary care. Future efforts to improve quality in primary care practices should consider the context and environment of individual practices, with targeted implementation strategies to meet the needs of independent and health system owned practices. Future efforts to improve quality in primary care practices require strategies to address initiative fatigue among clinicians and practice staff. External support for building capacity for quality improvement could help primary care practices implement and sustain evidence-based practices and improve quality of care.Trial registrationThis project was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 15/02/2017 and the identifier is NCT03054090.

Project description:BackgroundInstitutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency, delay, and bias, suggesting an opportunity for quality improvement. To aid such quality improvement, this study aimed at determining IRB members' and investigators' priorities regarding IRB review at 10 Veterans Affairs (VA) IRBs.Methods680 anonymous internet surveys were sent to 252 IRB members and staff, and 428 principal investigators and project coordinators at 9 VA Medical Centers and the VA Central IRB. Surveys included 27 statements adapted from Koocher and Kieth-Spiegel's IRB-RAT describing IRB activities or functions (e.g., "An IRB that is open to reversing its earlier decisions"). Respondents indicated how each statement described both their "ideal" and "actual" IRBs. The difference between the ratings of the actual and ideal IRBs was calculated for each item along with estimated 95% confidence intervals. Ratings outside those intervals indicated activities or functions with relatively good or poor performance compared to the ideal IRB.Results390 (57.4%) responses from 165 IRB members and staff (65.5%) and 225 investigators and project coordinators (52.6%) demonstrated that these IRBs were closest to the ideal when protecting human subjects, treating investigators with respect, and taking appropriate action for alleged scientific misconduct. The IRBs were furthest from the ideal regarding duplicative forms, timeliness of review, and provision of complete rationales for decisions. Although IRB members reported near-ideal willingness to reverse earlier decisions, investigators rated this capacity far from ideal. Investigators rated IRB members' knowledge about procedures and policy as nearly ideal, but IRB members themselves rated this aspect far from ideal. Noteworthy site-level differences in the ratings of IRB functions and activities were also identified.ConclusionsAlthough these VA IRBs perform well in some areas, these data support the need for ongoing quality improvement. The described method of administering and analyzing the IRB-RAT may help identify and monitor site- and activity- specific initiatives for quality improvement.

Project description:BackgroundThere is evidence that disparities exist in diabetes prevalence, access to diabetes care, diabetes-related complications, and the quality of diabetes care. A wide range of interventions has been implemented and evaluated to improve diabetes care. We aimed to review trials of quality improvement (QI) interventions aimed to reduce health inequities among people with diabetes in primary care and to explore the extent to which experimental studies addressed and reported equity issues.MethodsPubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled studies published between January 2005 and May 2016. We adopted the PROGRESS Plus framework, as a tool to explore differential effects of QI interventions across sociodemographic and economic factors.ResultsFrom 1903 references fifty-eight randomized trials met the inclusion criteria (with 17.786 participants), mostly carried out in USA. The methodological quality was good for all studies. Almost all studies reported the age, gender/sex and race distribution of study participants. The majority of trials additionally used at least one further PROGRESS-Plus factor at baseline, with education being the most commonly used, followed by income (55%). Large variation was observed between these studies for type of interventions, target populations, and outcomes evaluated. Few studies examined differential intervention effects by PROGRESS-plus factors. Existing evidence suggests that some QI intervention delivered in primary care can improve diabetes-related health outcomes in social disadvantaged population subgroups such as ethnic minorities. However, we found very few studies comparing health outcomes between population subgroups and reporting differential effect estimates of QI interventions.ConclusionsThis review provides evidence that QI interventions for people with diabetes is feasible to implement and highly acceptable. However, more research is needed to understand their effective components as well as the adoption of an equity-oriented approach in conducting primary studies. Moreover, a wider variety of socio-economic characteristics such as social capital, place of residence, occupation, education, and religion should be addressed.

Project description:IntroductionSocial risks (e.g., food/transportation insecurity) can hamper type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) self-management, leading to poor outcomes. To determine the extent to which high-quality care can overcome social risks' health impacts, this study assessed the associations between reported social risks, receipt of guideline-based T2DM care, and T2DM outcomes when care is up to date among community health center patients.MethodsA cross-sectional study of adults aged ≥18 years (N=73,484) seen at 186 community health centers, with T2DM and ≥1 year of observation between July 2016 and February 2020. Measures of T2DM care included up-to-date HbA1c, microalbuminuria, low-density lipoprotein screening, and foot examination, and active statin prescription when indicated. Measures of T2DM outcomes among patients with up-to-date care included blood pressure, HbA1c, and low-density lipoprotein control on or within 6‒12 months of an index encounter. Analyses were conducted in 2021.ResultsIndividuals reporting transportation or housing insecurity were less likely to have up-to-date low-density lipoprotein screening; no other associations were seen between social risks and clinical care quality. Among individuals with up-to-date care, food insecurity was associated with lower adjusted rates of controlled HbA1c (79% vs 75%, p<0.001), and transportation insecurity was associated with lower rates of controlled HbA1c (79% vs 74%, p=0.005), blood pressure (74% vs 72%, p=0.025), and low-density lipoprotein (61% vs 57%, p=0.009) than among those with no reported need.ConclusionsCommunity health center patients received similar care regardless of the presence of social risks. However, even among those up to date on care, social risks were associated with worse T2DM control. Future research should identify strategies for improving HbA1c control for individuals with social risks.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.Clinicaltrialsgov NCT03607617.

Project description:Background and aimsDespite well documented disparities in health and healthcare in rural communities, evidence in relation to quality improvement (QI) interventions in those settings is still lacking. The main goals of this work were to assess the effectiveness of QI strategies designed to improve diabetes care in rural areas, and identify characteristics associated with greater success.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and 12 additional bibliographic sources. Experimental studies carried out in the OECD member countries assessing the effectiveness of QI interventions aiming to improve diabetes care in rural areas were included. The effect of the interventions and their impact on glycated hemoglobin was pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsTwenty-six studies assessing the effectiveness of twenty QI interventions were included. Interventions targeted patients (45%), clinicians (5%), the health system (15%), or several targets (35%), and consisted of the implementation of one or multiple QI strategies. Most of the interventions produced a positive impact on processes of care or diabetes self-management, but a lower effect on health outcomes was observed. Interventions with multiple strategies and targeting the health system and/or clinicians were more likely to be effective. Six QI interventions were included in the meta-analysis (1,496 patients), which showed a significant reduction in overall glycated hemoglobin of 0.41 points from baseline in those patients receiving the interventions (95% CI -0.75% to -0.07%).ConclusionsThis work identified several characteristics associated with successful interventions to improve the quality of diabetes care in rural areas. Efforts to improve diabetes care in rural communities should focus on interventions with multiple strategies targeted at clinicians and/or the health system, rather than on traditional patient-oriented interventions.

Dataset Information

Do quality improvement initiatives for diabetes care address social inequities? Secondary analysis of a systematic review.

Publications

Do quality improvement initiatives for diabetes care address social inequities? Secondary analysis of a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets