Impact of Peer Health Coaching on Glycemic Control in Low-Income Patients With Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial
01 Mar 2013-Annals of Family Medicine (American Academy of Family Physicians)-Vol. 11, Iss: 2, pp 137-144
TL;DR: Whether clinic-based peer health coaching, compared with usual care, improves glycemic control for low-income patients who have poorly controlled diabetes is tested.
Abstract: PURPOSE Peer health coaches offer a potential model for extending the capacity of primary care practices to provide self-management support for patients with diabetes. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to test whether clinic-based peer health coaching, compared with usual care, improves glycemic control for low-income patients who have poorly controlled diabetes. METHOD We undertook a randomized controlled trial enrolling patients from 6 public health clinics in San Francisco. Twenty-three patients with a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) level of less than 8.5%, who completed a 36-hour health coach training class, acted as peer coaches. Patients from the same clinics with HbA1C levels of 8.0% or more were recruited and randomized to receive health coaching (n = 148) or usual care (n = 151). The primary outcome was the differ- ence in change in HbA1C levels at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were propor- tion of patients with a decrease in HbA1C level of 1.0% or more and proportion of patients with an HbA1C level of less than 7.5% at 6 months. Data were ana- lyzed using a linear mixed model with and without adjustment for differences in baseline variables. RESULTS At 6 months, HbA1C levels had decreased by 1.07% in the coached group and 0.3% in the usual care group, a difference of 0.77% in favor of coaching (P = .01, adjusted). HbA1C levels decreased 1.0% or more in 49.6% of coached patients vs 31.5% of usual care patients (P = .001, adjusted), and levels at 6 months were less than 7.5% for 22.0% of coached vs 14.9% of usual care patients (P = .04, adjusted). CONCLUSIONS Peer health coaching signifi cantly improved diabetes control in this group of low-income primary care patients.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Routine search for interventions to improve participants' knowledge, skills, and ability to perform self-management activities as well as informed decision-making around goal setting found robust data demonstrating that engagement in diabetes self- management education results in a statistically significant decrease in A1C levels.
564 citations
TL;DR: It is important for health care providers and their practice settings to have the resources and a systematic referral process to ensure that patients with type 2 diabetes receive both DSME and DSMS in a consistent manner.
Abstract: Diabetes is a chronic disease that requires a person with diabetes to make a multitude of daily self-management decisions and to perform complex care activities. Diabetes self-management education and support (DSME/S) provides the foundation to help people with diabetes to navigate these decisions and activities and has been shown to improve health outcomes (1–7). Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is the process of facilitating the knowledge, skill, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care. Diabetes self-management support (DSMS) refers to the support that is required for implementing and sustaining coping skills and behaviors needed to self-manage on an ongoing basis. (See further definitions in Table 1.) Although different members of the health care team and community can contribute to this process, it is important for health care providers and their practice settings to have the resources and a systematic referral process to ensure that patients with type 2 diabetes receive both DSME and DSMS in a consistent manner. The initial DSME is typically provided by a health professional, whereas ongoing support can be provided by personnel within a practice and a variety of community-based resources. DSME/S programs are designed to address the patient’s health beliefs, cultural needs, current knowledge, physical limitations, emotional concerns, family support, financial status, medical history, health literacy, numeracy, and other factors that influence each person’s ability to meet the challenges of self-management.
View this table:
TABLE 1.
Key Definitions
It is the position of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) that all individuals with diabetes receive DSME/S at diagnosis and as needed thereafter (8). This position statement focuses on the particular needs of individuals with type 2 diabetes. The needs will be similar to those of people with other types of diabetes (type 1 diabetes, prediabetes, and gestational diabetes mellitus); however, the research and examples referred to in this article focus …
500 citations
TL;DR: The building blocks, which represent a synthesis of the innovative thinking that is transforming primary care in the United States, are both a description of existing high-performing practices and a model for improvement.
Abstract: Our experiences studying exemplar primary care practices, and our work assisting other practices to become more patient centered, led to a formulation of the essential elements of primary care, which we call the 10 building blocks of high-performing primary care. The building blocks include 4 foundational elements—engaged leadership, data-driven improvement, empanelment, and team-based care—that assist the implementation of the other 6 building blocks—patient-team partnership, population management, continuity of care, prompt access to care, comprehensiveness and care coordination, and a template of the future. The building blocks, which represent a synthesis of the innovative thinking that is transforming primary care in the United States, are both a description of existing high-performing practices and a model for improvement.
382 citations
TL;DR: It is important for health care providers and their practice settings to have the resources and a systematic referral process to ensure that patients with type 2 diabetes receive both DSME and DSMS in a consistent manner.
Abstract: D IABETES ISACHRONICDISEASE that requires a person with diabetes to make a multitude of daily self-management decisions and to perform complex care activities. Diabetes self-management education and support (DSME/S) provides the foundation to help people with diabetes to navigate these decisions and activities and has been shown to improve health outcomes. Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is the process of facilitating the knowledge, skill, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care. Diabetes selfmanagement support (DSMS) refers to the support that is required for implementing and sustaining coping skills and behaviors needed to self-manage on an ongoing basis. (See further definitions in Figure 1.) Although different members of the health care team and community can contribute to this process, it is important for health care providers and their practice settings to have the resources and a systematic referral process to ensure that patients with type 2 diabetes receive both DSME and DSMS in a consistent manner. The initial
379 citations
TL;DR: A patient advisory group of people with experience of living with long-term conditions advised on various aspects of the review, including the protocol, selection of outcome measures and emerging findings.
Abstract: © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Background: Personalised care planning is a collaborative process used in chronic condition management in which patients and clinicians identify and discuss problems caused by or related to the patient's condition, and develop a plan for tackling these. In essence it is a conversation, or series of conversations, in which they jointly agree goals and actions for managing the patient's condition. Objectives: To assess the effects of personalised care planning for adults with long-term health conditions compared to usual care (i.e. forms of care in which active involvement of patients in treatment and management decisions is not explicitly attempted or achieved). Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ProQuest, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to July 2013. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials involving adults with long-term conditions where the intervention included collaborative (between individual patients and clinicians) goal setting and action planning. We excluded studies where there was little or no opportunity for the patient to have meaningful influence on goal selection, choice of treatment or support package, or both. Data collection and analysis: Two of three review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were effects on physical health, psychological health, subjective health status, and capabilities for self management. Secondary outcomes included effects on health-related behaviours, resource use and costs, and type of intervention. A patient advisory group of people with experience of living with long-term conditions advised on various aspects of the review, including the protocol, selection of outcome measures and emerging findings. Main results: We included 19 studies involving a total of 10,856 participants. Twelve of these studies focused on diabetes, three on mental health, one on heart failure, one on end-stage renal disease, one on asthma, and one on various chronic conditions. All 19 studies included components that were intended to support behaviour change among patients, involving either face-to-face or telephone support. All but three of the personalised care planning interventions took place in primary care or community settings; the remaining three were located in hospital clinics. There was some concern about risk of bias for each of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, usually due to inadequate or unclear descriptions of research methods. Physical health Nine studies measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), giving a combined mean difference (MD) between intervention and control of -0.24% (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to -0.14), a small positive effect in favour of personalised care planning compared to usual care (moderate quality evidence). Six studies measured systolic blood pressure, a combined mean difference of -2.64 mm/Hg (95% CI -4.47 to -0.82) favouring personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The pooled results from four studies showed no significant effect on diastolic blood pressure, MD -0.71 mm/Hg (95% CI -2.26 to 0.84). We found no evidence of an effect on cholesterol (LDL-C), standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.11) (five studies) or body mass index, MD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) (four studies). A single study of people with asthma reported that personalised care planning led to improvements in lung function and asthma control. Psychological health Six studies measured depression. We were able to pool results from five of these, giving an SMD of -0.36 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.20), a small effect in favour of personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The remaining study found greater improvement in the control group than the intervention group. Four other studies used a variety of psychological measures that were conceptually different so could not be pooled. Of these, three found greater improvement for the personalised care group than the usual care group and one was too small to detect differences in outcomes. Subjective health status Ten studies used various patient-reported measures of health status (or health-related quality of life), including both generic health status measures and condition-specific ones. We were able to pool data from three studies that used the SF-36 or SF-12, but found no effect on the physical component summary score SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.38) or the mental component summary score SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.15 to 0.28) (moderate quality evidence). Of the three other studies that measured generic health status, two found improvements related to personalised care and one did not. Four studies measured condition-specific health status. The combined results showed no difference between the intervention and control groups, SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.10) (moderate quality evidence). Self-management capabilities Nine studies looked at the effect of personalised care on self-management capabilities using a variety of outcome measures, but they focused primarily on self efficacy. We were able to pool results from five studies that measured self efficacy, giving a small positive result in favour of personalised care planning: SMD 0.25 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.43) (moderate quality evidence). A further five studies measured other attributes that contribute to self-management capabilities. The results from these were mixed: two studies found evidence of an effect on patient activation, one found an effect on empowerment, and one found improvements in perceived interpersonal support. Other outcomes Pooled data from five studies on exercise levels showed no effect due to personalised care planning, but there was a positive effect on people's self-reported ability to carry out self-care activities: SMD 0.35 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.52). We found no evidence of adverse effects due to personalised care planning. The effects of personalised care planning were greater when more stages of the care planning cycle were completed, when contacts between patients and health professionals were more frequent, and when the patient's usual clinician was involved in the process. Authors' conclusions: Personalised care planning leads to improvements in certain indicators of physical and psychological health status, and people's capability to self-manage their condition when compared to usual care. The effects are not large, but they appear greater when the intervention is more comprehensive, more intensive, and better integrated into routine care.
376 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: The Consort 2010 Statement as discussed by the authors has been used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials and has been updated by Schulz et al. in 2010, based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience.
Abstract: The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. To encourage dissemination of the CONSORT 2010 Statement, this article is freely accessible on bmj.com and will also be published in the Lancet, Obstetrics and Gynecology, PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Open Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, BMC Medicine, and Trials.
11,165 citations
TL;DR: The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement as discussed by the authors is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomized, controlled trials. Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience.
Abstract: The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomized, controlled trials. Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience.
3,352 citations
TL;DR: Evidence supports the effectiveness of self-management training in type 2 diabetes, particularly in the short term, and further research is needed to assess the effectiveness on sustained glycemic control, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and ultimately, microvascular and cardiovascular disease and quality of life.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE —To systematically review the effectiveness of self-management training in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS —MEDLINE, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Nursing and Allied Health databases were searched for English-language articles published between 1980 and 1999. Studies were original articles reporting the results of randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of self-management training in people with type 2 diabetes. Relevant data on study design, population demographics, interventions, outcomes, methodological quality, and external validity were tabulated. Interventions were categorized based on educational focus (information, lifestyle behaviors, mechanical skills, and coping skills), and outcomes were classified as knowledge, attitudes, and self-care skills; lifestyle behaviors, psychological outcomes, and quality of life; glycemic control; cardiovascular disease risk factors; and economic measures and health service utilization. RESULTS —A total of 72 studies described in 84 articles were identified for this review. Positive effects of self-management training on knowledge, frequency and accuracy of self-monitoring of blood glucose, self-reported dietary habits, and glycemic control were demonstrated in studies with short follow-up ( CONCLUSIONS —Evidence supports the effectiveness of self-management training in type 2 diabetes, particularly in the short term. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of self-management interventions on sustained glycemic control, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and ultimately, microvascular and cardiovascular disease and quality of life.
1,886 citations
TL;DR: Group-based training for self-management strategies in people with type 2 diabetes is effective by improving fasting blood glucose levels, glycated haemoglobin and diabetes knowledge and reducing systolic blood pressure levels, body weight and the requirement for diabetes medication.
Abstract: Background
It has been recognised that adoption of self-management skills by the person with diabetes is necessary in order to manage their diabetes. However, the most effective method for delivering education and teaching self-management skills is unclear.
Objectives
To assess the effects of group-based, patient-centred training on clinical, lifestyle and psychosocial outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes.
Search methods
Studies were obtained from computerised searches of multiple electronic bibliographic databases, supplemented by hand searches of reference lists of articles, conference proceedings and consultation with experts in the field.
Selection criteria
Randomised controlled and controlled clinical trials which evaluated group-based education programmes for adults with type 2 diabetes compared with routine treatment, waiting list control or no intervention. Studies were only included if the length of follow-up was six months or more and the intervention was at least one session with the minimum of six participants.
Data collection and analysis
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis was performed if there were enough homogeneous studies reporting an outcome at either four to six months, 12-14 months, or two years, otherwise the studies were summarised in a descriptive manner.
Main results
Fourteen publications describing 11 studies were included involving 1532 participants. The results of the meta-analyses in favour of group-based diabetes education programmes were reduced glycated haemoglobin at four to six months (1.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 1.9; P < 0.00001), at 12-14 months (0.8%; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.0; P < 0.00001) and two years (1.0%; 95% CI 0.5 to 1.4; P < 0.00001); reduced fasting blood glucose levels at 12 months (1.2 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.6; P < 0.00001); reduced body weight at 12-14 months (1.6 Kg; 95% CI 0.3 to 3.0; P = 0.02); improved diabetes knowledge at 12-14 months (SMD 1.0; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.2; P < 0.00001) and reduced systolic blood pressure at four to six months (5 mmHg: 95% CI 1 to 10; P = 0.01). There was also a reduced need for diabetes medication (odds ratio 11.8, 95% CI 5.2 to 26.9; P < 0.00001; RD = 0.2; NNT = 5). Therefore, for every five patients attending a group-based education programme we could expect one patient to reduce diabetes medication.
Authors' conclusions
Group-based training for self-management strategies in people with type 2 diabetes is effective by improving fasting blood glucose levels, glycated haemoglobin and diabetes knowledge and reducing systolic blood pressure levels, body weight and the requirement for diabetes medication.
865 citations
TL;DR: In 2005, approximately 400,000 people provided primary medical care in the United States, and about 300,000 were physicians, and another 100,000were nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
Abstract: In 2005, approximately 400,000 people provided primary medical care in the United States. About 300,000 were physicians, and another 100,000 were nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Yet primary care faces a growing crisis, in part because increasing numbers of U.S. medical graduates are avoiding careers in adult primary care. Sixty-five million Americans live in what are officially deemed primary care shortage areas, and adults throughout the United States face difficulty obtaining prompt access to primary care. A variety of strategies are being tried to improve primary care access, even without a large increase in the primary care workforce.
620 citations