OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationships among patient characteristics, labor inputs, and improvement in glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) level in a successful primary care-based diabetes disease management program (DDMP). STUDY DESIGN: We performed subanalyses to examine the relationships among patient characteristics, labor inputs, and improvement in A1C level within a randomized controlled trial. Control patients received usual care, while intervention patients received usual care plus a comprehensive DDMP. METHODS: The primary outcome was improvement in A1C level over 12 months stratified by intervention status and patient characteristics. Process outcomes included the number of actions or contacts with patients, time spent with patients, and number of glucose medication titrations or additions. RESULTS:One hundred ninety-three of 217 enrolled patients (88.9%) had complete 12-month followup data. Patients in the intervention group had significantly greater improvement in A1C level than the control group (-2.1% vs -1.2%, P = .007). In multivariate analysis, no significant differences were observed in improvement in A1C level when stratified by age, race/ethnicity, income, or insurance status, and no interaction effect was observed between any covariate and intervention status. Among intervention patients, we observed similar labor inputs regardless of age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, or whether goal A1C level was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Among intervention patients in a successful DDMP, improvement in A1C level was achieved regardless of age, race/ethnicity, sex, income, education, or insurance status. Labor inputs were similar regardless of age, race/ethnicity, sex, or education and may reflect the nondiscriminatory nature of providing algorithm-based disease management care.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationships among patient characteristics, labor inputs, and improvement in glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) level in a successful primary care-based diabetes disease management program (DDMP). STUDY DESIGN: We performed subanalyses to examine the relationships among patient characteristics, labor inputs, and improvement in A1C level within a randomized controlled trial. Control patients received usual care, while intervention patients received usual care plus a comprehensive DDMP. METHODS: The primary outcome was improvement in A1C level over 12 months stratified by intervention status and patient characteristics. Process outcomes included the number of actions or contacts with patients, time spent with patients, and number of glucose medication titrations or additions. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three of 217 enrolled patients (88.9%) had complete 12-month followup data. Patients in the intervention group had significantly greater improvement in A1C level than the control group (-2.1% vs -1.2%, P = .007). In multivariate analysis, no significant differences were observed in improvement in A1C level when stratified by age, race/ethnicity, income, or insurance status, and no interaction effect was observed between any covariate and intervention status. Among intervention patients, we observed similar labor inputs regardless of age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, or whether goal A1C level was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Among intervention patients in a successful DDMP, improvement in A1C level was achieved regardless of age, race/ethnicity, sex, income, education, or insurance status. Labor inputs were similar regardless of age, race/ethnicity, sex, or education and may reflect the nondiscriminatory nature of providing algorithm-based disease management care.
Authors: Susan L Norris; Phyllis J Nichols; Carl J Caspersen; Russell E Glasgow; Michael M Engelgau; Leonard Jack; George Isham; Susan R Snyder; Vilma G Carande-Kulis; Sanford Garfield; Peter Briss; David McCulloch Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: K A Schulman; J A Berlin; W Harless; J F Kerner; S Sistrunk; B J Gersh; R Dubé; C K Taleghani; J E Burke; S Williams; J M Eisenberg; J J Escarce Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-02-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Peter Gaede; Pernille Vedel; Nicolai Larsen; Gunnar V H Jensen; Hans-Henrik Parving; Oluf Pedersen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-01-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas D Sequist; Garrett M Fitzmaurice; Richard Marshall; Shimon Shaykevich; Dana Gelb Safran; John Z Ayanian Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-06-09
Authors: Marshall H Chin; Sandy Cook; Melinda L Drum; Lei Jin; Myriam Guillen; Catherine A Humikowski; Julie Koppert; James F Harrison; Susan Lippold; Cynthia T Schaefer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Stacy Cooper Bailey; Angela G Brega; Trisha M Crutchfield; Tom Elasy; Haley Herr; Kimberly Kaphingst; Andrew J Karter; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Chandra Y Osborn; Michael Pignone; Russell Rothman; Dean Schillinger Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 2.140