Bart Thoolen1, Denise de Ridder1, Jozien Bensing1,2, Kees Gorter3, Guy Rutten3. 1. The Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands (Mr Thoolen, Dr de Ridder, Dr Bensing) 2. Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands (Dr Bensing) 3. The Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht, the Netherlands (Dr Gorter, Dr Rutten)
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine reasons for nonparticipation and drop out in a diabetes self-management intervention. METHODS:A total of 468 recently screen-detected patients, receiving usual care or intensive pharmacological treatment, were invited and randomized into either a control or intervention condition, consisting of a brief self-management course. A nonresponse survey was conducted, and participants, nonparticipants, and dropouts were compared on sociodemographic variables, diabetes attitudes, and self-care. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients consented and were allocated to the control (n=108) or intervention group (n=119). Two hundred forty-one patients declined participation, 41 dropped out, and 78 completed the intervention. Major reasons for refusal and drop out were hesitancy toward research and practical barriers. Nonparticipants were less educated and reported higher self-management, while participation also varied by treatment and disease duration: intensively treated patients were more likely to participate in their first year, and usual-care patients participated more often 2 to 3 years after diagnosis. Dropouts had a lower education level but did not differ on any other measure. CONCLUSION: Participants, nonparticipants, and dropouts did not differ in their attitudes toward diabetes, but the intervention did attract patients with lower self-care. Variations in participation by treatment and disease duration suggest that patients prefer self-management interventions at different times depending on their medical treatment. Finally, education appears to be the most important factor determining participation. Alternative strategies are needed to attract and retain patients with low education.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine reasons for nonparticipation and drop out in a diabetes self-management intervention. METHODS: A total of 468 recently screen-detected patients, receiving usual care or intensive pharmacological treatment, were invited and randomized into either a control or intervention condition, consisting of a brief self-management course. A nonresponse survey was conducted, and participants, nonparticipants, and dropouts were compared on sociodemographic variables, diabetes attitudes, and self-care. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients consented and were allocated to the control (n=108) or intervention group (n=119). Two hundred forty-one patients declined participation, 41 dropped out, and 78 completed the intervention. Major reasons for refusal and drop out were hesitancy toward research and practical barriers. Nonparticipants were less educated and reported higher self-management, while participation also varied by treatment and disease duration: intensively treated patients were more likely to participate in their first year, and usual-care patients participated more often 2 to 3 years after diagnosis. Dropouts had a lower education level but did not differ on any other measure. CONCLUSION:Participants, nonparticipants, and dropouts did not differ in their attitudes toward diabetes, but the intervention did attract patients with lower self-care. Variations in participation by treatment and disease duration suggest that patients prefer self-management interventions at different times depending on their medical treatment. Finally, education appears to be the most important factor determining participation. Alternative strategies are needed to attract and retain patients with low education.
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Deanna Kurz; Diane King; Jennifer M Dickman; Andrew J Faber; Eve Halterman; Tim Woolley; Deborah J Toobert; Lisa A Strycker; Paul A Estabrooks; Diego Osuna; Debra Ritzwoller Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2011-09-15
Authors: Melissa Dattalo; Erin R Giovannetti; Daniel Scharfstein; Chad Boult; Stephen Wegener; Jennifer L Wolff; Bruce Leff; Kevin D Frick; Lisa Reider; Katherine Frey; Gary Noronha; Cynthia Boyd Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Deanna Kurz; Diane King; Jennifer M Dickman; Andrew J Faber; Eve Halterman; Tim Wooley; Deborah J Toobert; Lisa A Strycker; Paul A Estabrooks; Diego Osuna; Debra Ritzwoller Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Steven M Christiansen; Deanna Kurz; Diane K King; Tim Woolley; Andrew J Faber; Paul A Estabrooks; Lisa Strycker; Deborah Toobert; Jennifer Dickman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-01-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Tracey Jhita; Stavros Petrou; Anil Gumber; Ala Szczepura; Neil T Raymond; Srikanth Bellary Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Larissa A Korde; Amy Micheli; Ashley W Smith; David Venzon; Sheila A Prindiville; Bart Drinkard; Nancy Sebring; Marcia D Smith; Jo Anne Zujewski; Jennifer Eng-Wong Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2009-04-27 Impact factor: 4.615