BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes affects one in five African American women older than 60 years. These women face distinct challenges in managing diabetes self-care. Therefore, tailored self-care interventions for this population need to be developed and tested. OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of a tailored, four-visit, in-home symptom-focused diabetes intervention with and without booster telephone calls was compared with an attentional control focused on skills training for weight management and diet. METHODS:African American women (n = 180; >55 years old, Type 2 diabetes mellitus >1 year, HbA1c >7%) were randomly assigned to the intervention or attentional control condition. Half the intervention participants were assigned to also receive a telephone-delivered booster intervention. Participants were evaluated at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months. RESULTS: : Baseline HbA1 was 8.3 in the intervention group (n = 60), 8.29 in the intervention with booster group (n = 55), and 8.44 in the attentional control condition (n = 59). HbA1c declined significantly in the whole sample (0.57%) with no differences between study arms. Participants in the booster arm decreased HbA1c by 0.76%. Symptom distress, perceived quality of life, impact of diabetes, and self-care activities also improved significantly for the whole sample with no significant differences between study arms. DISCUSSION: Parsimonious interventions of four in-person visits yielded clinically significant decreases in HbA1c. Although the weight and diet program was intended as an attentional control, the positive effects suggest it met a need in this population. Because the contents of both the intervention and the attentional control were effective despite different approaches, a revised symptom-focused intervention that incorporates weight and diet skills training may offer even better results.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Type 2 diabetes affects one in five African American women older than 60 years. These women face distinct challenges in managing diabetes self-care. Therefore, tailored self-care interventions for this population need to be developed and tested. OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of a tailored, four-visit, in-home symptom-focused diabetes intervention with and without booster telephone calls was compared with an attentional control focused on skills training for weight management and diet. METHODS: African American women (n = 180; >55 years old, Type 2 diabetes mellitus >1 year, HbA1c >7%) were randomly assigned to the intervention or attentional control condition. Half the intervention participants were assigned to also receive a telephone-delivered booster intervention. Participants were evaluated at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months. RESULTS: : Baseline HbA1 was 8.3 in the intervention group (n = 60), 8.29 in the intervention with booster group (n = 55), and 8.44 in the attentional control condition (n = 59). HbA1c declined significantly in the whole sample (0.57%) with no differences between study arms. Participants in the booster arm decreased HbA1c by 0.76%. Symptom distress, perceived quality of life, impact of diabetes, and self-care activities also improved significantly for the whole sample with no significant differences between study arms. DISCUSSION: Parsimonious interventions of four in-person visits yielded clinically significant decreases in HbA1c. Although the weight and diet program was intended as an attentional control, the positive effects suggest it met a need in this population. Because the contents of both the intervention and the attentional control were effective despite different approaches, a revised symptom-focused intervention that incorporates weight and diet skills training may offer even better results.
Authors: C D Samuel-Hodge; S W Headen; A H Skelly; A F Ingram; T C Keyserling; E J Jackson; A S Ammerman; T A Elasy Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Catherine A Sarkisian; Arleen F Brown; Keith C Norris; Ruth L Wintz; Carol M Mangione Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Thomas C Keyserling; Carmen D Samuel-Hodge; Alice S Ammerman; Barbara E Ainsworth; Carlos F Henríquez-Roldán; Tom A Elasy; Anne H Skelly; Larry F Johnston; Shrikant I Bangdiwala Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Karen M Goldstein; Leah L Zullig; Eric A Dedert; Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Timothy W Brearly; Giselle Raitz; Suchita Shah Sata; John D Whited; Hayden B Bosworth; Adelaide M Gordon; Avishek Nagi; John W Williams; Jennifer M Gierisch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Bin Zeng; Wenjie Sun; Rebecca A Gary; Changwei Li; Tingting Liu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 3.390