Garry Welch1, Sofija E Zagarins, Rebecca G Feinberg, Jane L Garb. 1. Department of Behavioral Medicine Research, Baystate Medical Center, 140 High Street, Room 2104, Springfield, MA 01105, United States. Garry.Welch@baystatehealth.org
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether glycemic control is improved when motivational interviewing (MI), a patient-centered behavior change strategy, is used with diabetes self management education (DSME) as compared to DSME alone. METHODS: poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients (n=234) were randomized into 4 groups: MI+DSME or DSME alone, with or without use of a computerized summary of patient self management barriers. We compared HbA1c changes between groups at 6 months and investigated mediators of HbA1c change. RESULTS:study patients attended the majority of the four intervention visits (mean 3.4), but drop-out rate was high at follow-up research visits (35%). Multiple regression showed that groups receiving MI had a mean change in HbA1c that was significantly lower (less improved) than those not receiving MI (t=2.10; p=0.037). Mediators of HbA1c change for the total group were diabetes self-care behaviors and diabetes distress; no between-group differences were found. CONCLUSIONS:DSME improved blood glucose control, underlining its benefit for T2DM management. However, MI+DSME was less effective than DSME alone. Overall, weak support was found for the clinical utility of MI in the management of T2DM delivered by diabetes educators. 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To determine whether glycemic control is improved when motivational interviewing (MI), a patient-centered behavior change strategy, is used with diabetes self management education (DSME) as compared to DSME alone. METHODS: poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients (n=234) were randomized into 4 groups: MI+DSME or DSME alone, with or without use of a computerized summary of patient self management barriers. We compared HbA1c changes between groups at 6 months and investigated mediators of HbA1c change. RESULTS: study patients attended the majority of the four intervention visits (mean 3.4), but drop-out rate was high at follow-up research visits (35%). Multiple regression showed that groups receiving MI had a mean change in HbA1c that was significantly lower (less improved) than those not receiving MI (t=2.10; p=0.037). Mediators of HbA1c change for the total group were diabetes self-care behaviors and diabetes distress; no between-group differences were found. CONCLUSIONS:DSME improved blood glucose control, underlining its benefit for T2DM management. However, MI+DSME was less effective than DSME alone. Overall, weak support was found for the clinical utility of MI in the management of T2DM delivered by diabetes educators. 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Martha M Funnell; Robin Nwankwo; Mary Lou Gillard; Robert M Anderson; Tricia S Tang Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Margaret A Powers; Joan Bardsley; Marjorie Cypress; Paulina Duker; Martha M Funnell; Amy Hess Fischl; Melinda D Maryniuk; Linda Siminerio; Eva Vivian Journal: Clin Diabetes Date: 2016-04
Authors: April Idalski Carcone; Angela J Jacques-Tiura; Kathryn E Brogan Hartlieb; Terrance Albrecht; Tim Martin Journal: Pediatr Clin North Am Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.278
Authors: Khalida Ismail; Daniel Stahl; Adam Bayley; Katherine Twist; Kurtis Stewart; Katie Ridge; Emma Britneff; Mark Ashworth; Nicole de Zoysa; Jennifer Rundle; Derek Cook; Peter Whincup; Janet Treasure; Paul McCrone; Anne Greenough; Kirsty Winkley Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Robert A Gabbay; Raquel M Añel-Tiangco; Cheryl Dellasega; David T Mauger; Alan Adelman; Deborah H A Van Horn Journal: J Diabetes Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 4.006
Authors: Khalida Ismail; Kirsty Winkley; Nicole de Zoysa; Anita Patel; Margaret Heslin; Helen Graves; Stephen Thomas; Dominic Stringer; Daniel Stahl; Stephanie A Amiel Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 5.386