Literature DB >> 20513826

Medical clinics versus usual care for patients with both diabetes and hypertension: a randomized trial.

David Edelman1, Sonja K Fredrickson, Stephanie D Melnyk, Cynthia J Coffman, Amy S Jeffreys, Santanu Datta, George L Jackson, Amy C Harris, Natia S Hamilton, Helen Stewart, Jeannette Stein, Morris Weinberger.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Group medical clinics (GMCs) are widely used in the management of diabetes and hypertension, but data on their effectiveness are limited.
OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of GMCs in the management of comorbid diabetes and hypertension.
DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00286741)
SETTING: 2 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in North Carolina and Virginia. PATIENTS: 239 patients with poorly controlled diabetes (hemoglobin A(1c) [HbA(1c)] level > or =7.5%) and hypertension (systolic blood pressure >140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned within each center to either attend a GMC or receive usual care. Clinics comprised 7 to 8 patients and a care team that consisted of a primary care general internist, a pharmacist, and a nurse or other certified diabetes educator. Each session included structured group interactions moderated by the educator. The pharmacist and physician adjusted medication to manage each patient's HbA(1c) level and blood pressure. MEASUREMENTS: Hemoglobin A(1c) level and systolic blood pressure, measured by blinded research personnel at baseline, study midpoint (median, 6.8 months), and study completion (median follow-up, 12.8 months). Linear mixed models, adjusted for clustering within GMCs, were used to compare HbA(1c) levels and systolic blood pressure between the intervention and control groups.
RESULTS: Mean baseline systolic blood pressure and HbA(1c) level were 152.9 mm Hg (SD, 14.2) and 9.2% (SD, 1.4), respectively. At the end of the study, mean systolic blood pressure improved by 13.7 mm Hg in the GMC group and 6.4 mm Hg in the usual care group (P = 0.011 by linear mixed model), whereas mean HbA(1c) level improved by 0.8% in the GMC group and 0.5% in the usual care group (P = 0.159). LIMITATION: Measurements of effectiveness may have been limited by concomitant improvements in the usual care group that were due to co-intervention.
CONCLUSION: Group medical clinics are a potent strategy for improving blood pressure but not HbA(1c) level in diabetic patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20513826     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  64 in total

1.  Prevention: Group medical clinics to manage diabetes and hypertension.

Authors:  Helene Myrvang
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 32.419

2.  Clinician-Reported Barriers to Group Visit Implementation.

Authors:  Beth A Careyva; Melanie B Johnson; Samantha A Goodrich; Kyle Shaak; Brian Stello
Journal:  J Prim Care Community Health       Date:  2016-02-16

3.  Influence of shared medical appointments on patient satisfaction: a retrospective 3-year study.

Authors:  Leonie Heyworth; Ronen Rozenblum; James F Burgess; Errol Baker; Mark Meterko; Debra Prescott; Zeev Neuwirth; Steven R Simon
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  Shared medical appointments in urology.

Authors:  Jonathan Rubenstein
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2014

5.  Nurse-led behavioral management of diabetes and hypertension in community practices: a randomized trial.

Authors:  David Edelman; Rowena J Dolor; Cynthia J Coffman; Katherine C Pereira; Bradi B Granger; Jennifer H Lindquist; Alice M Neary; Amy J Harris; Hayden B Bosworth
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Jump starting shared medical appointments for diabetes with weight management: Rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Matthew J Crowley; David Edelman; Corrine I Voils; Matthew L Maciejewski; Cynthia J Coffman; Amy S Jeffreys; Marsha J Turner; Leslie A Gaillard; Teresa A Hinton; Elizabeth Strawbridge; Jennifer Zervakis; Anna Beth Barton; William S Yancy
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2017-04-23       Impact factor: 2.226

7.  Impact of Bridging Income Generation with Group Integrated Care (BIGPIC) on Hypertension and Diabetes in Rural Western Kenya.

Authors:  Sonak D Pastakia; Simon M Manyara; Rajesh Vedanthan; Jemima H Kamano; Diana Menya; Benjamin Andama; Cleophas Chesoli; Jeremiah Laktabai
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Concurrent group treatment for hepatitis C: implementation and outcomes in a methadone maintenance treatment program.

Authors:  Melissa R Stein; Irene J Soloway; Karen S Jefferson; Robert J Roose; Julia H Arnsten; Alain H Litwin
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2012-10-02

Review 9.  Team-based care and improved blood pressure control: a community guide systematic review.

Authors:  Krista K Proia; Anilkrishna B Thota; Gibril J Njie; Ramona K C Finnie; David P Hopkins; Qaiser Mukhtar; Nicolaas P Pronk; Donald Zeigler; Thomas E Kottke; Kimberly J Rask; Daniel T Lackland; Joy F Brooks; Lynne T Braun; Tonya Cooksey
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Telemedicine cardiovascular risk reduction in veterans.

Authors:  S Dee Melnyk; Leah L Zullig; Felicia McCant; Susanne Danus; Eugene Oddone; Lori Bastian; Maren Olsen; Karen M Stechuchak; David Edelman; Susan Rakley; Miriam Morey; Hayden B Bosworth
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 4.749

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.