OBJECTIVE: Despite good evidence and clinical practice guidelines, studies document that treatment of type 2 diabetes is less than optimal. Lack of resources or limited access may put patients in rural communities at particular risk for suboptimal care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, before/after study with concurrent controls to assess the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary diabetes outreach service (intervention) for improving the quality of care for rural patients with type 2 diabetes. Our intervention consisted of six monthly visits by a traveling team of specialist physicians, nurses, dieticians, and a pharmacist. The core of this service was specialist-to-rural primary care physician academic group detailing. Two comparable regions in Northern Alberta were randomly allocated to control or intervention. Data were collected before and 6 months after intervention in a representative volunteer sample. The primary outcome was a 10% improvement in any one of the following: blood pressure, total cholesterol, or HbA(1c). RESULTS: Our analysis included 200 intervention and 179 control subjects; 14 subjects were at all three primary outcome targets at baseline. The intervention was associated with a trend toward improvement in primary outcome at 6 months (44% intervention vs. 37% control; odds ratio 1.32, 95% CI 0.87-1.99). The intervention was associated with a significant improvement in blood pressure (42% intervention vs. 25% control, P = 0.004); however, there were only small, nonsignificant changes in cholesterol or HbA(1c). The intervention was associated with a significant increase in satisfaction with diabetes care. Multivariate adjustment for baseline differences between intervention and control subjects did not affect any of the main results. CONCLUSIONS: A diabetes outreach service has the potential to improve the quality of diabetes care for rural patients. Future studies need to involve longer timelines and larger sample sizes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Despite good evidence and clinical practice guidelines, studies document that treatment of type 2 diabetes is less than optimal. Lack of resources or limited access may put patients in rural communities at particular risk for suboptimal care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, before/after study with concurrent controls to assess the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary diabetes outreach service (intervention) for improving the quality of care for rural patients with type 2 diabetes. Our intervention consisted of six monthly visits by a traveling team of specialist physicians, nurses, dieticians, and a pharmacist. The core of this service was specialist-to-rural primary care physician academic group detailing. Two comparable regions in Northern Alberta were randomly allocated to control or intervention. Data were collected before and 6 months after intervention in a representative volunteer sample. The primary outcome was a 10% improvement in any one of the following: blood pressure, total cholesterol, or HbA(1c). RESULTS: Our analysis included 200 intervention and 179 control subjects; 14 subjects were at all three primary outcome targets at baseline. The intervention was associated with a trend toward improvement in primary outcome at 6 months (44% intervention vs. 37% control; odds ratio 1.32, 95% CI 0.87-1.99). The intervention was associated with a significant improvement in blood pressure (42% intervention vs. 25% control, P = 0.004); however, there were only small, nonsignificant changes in cholesterol or HbA(1c). The intervention was associated with a significant increase in satisfaction with diabetes care. Multivariate adjustment for baseline differences between intervention and control subjects did not affect any of the main results. CONCLUSIONS: A diabetes outreach service has the potential to improve the quality of diabetes care for rural patients. Future studies need to involve longer timelines and larger sample sizes.
Authors: Janice C Zgibor; Laura B Gieraltowski; Evelyn O Talbott; Anthony Fabio; Ravi K Sharma; Karimi Hassan Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2011-05-01
Authors: Sheldon W Tobe; George Pylypchuk; Joan Wentworth; Alexander Kiss; John Paul Szalai; Nancy Perkins; Susan Hartman; Laurie Ironstand; Jacqueline Hoppe Journal: CMAJ Date: 2006-04-04 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Finlay A McAlister; Sumit R Majumdar; Rajdeep S Padwal; Miriam Fradette; Ann Thompson; Ross Tsuyuki; Steven A Grover; Naeem Dean; Ashfaq Shuaib Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-04-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Jason M Moss; William E Bryan; Loren M Wilkerson; Heather A King; George L Jackson; Ryan K Owenby; Courtney H Van Houtven; Melissa B Stevens; James Powers; Camille P Vaughan; William W Hung; Ula Hwang; Alayne D Markland; Richard Sloane; William Knaack; Susan Nicole Hastings Journal: J Pharm Pract Date: 2017-12-25
Authors: Steven R Simon; Hector P Rodriguez; Sumit R Majumdar; Ken Kleinman; Cheryl Warner; Susanne Salem-Schatz; Irina Miroshnik; Stephen B Soumerai; Lisa A Prosser Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Jeffrey A Johnson; Fatima Al Sayah; Lisa Wozniak; Sandra Rees; Allison Soprovich; Constance L Chik; Pierre Chue; Peter Florence; Jennifer Jacquier; Pauline Lysak; Andrea Opgenorth; Wayne J Katon; Sumit R Majumdar Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Marianne E Gee; William Pickett; Ian Janssen; Jeffrey A Johnson; Norman R C Campbell Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 3.738