Russell E Glasgow1. 1. Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, USA. russg@re-aim.net
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management presents a series of challenging tasks, and primary care, where the majority of cases of adult diabetes are treated, is hard-pressed to address these issues given competing demands. This article discusses how interactive media (IM) can be used to support diabetes self-management. METHODS: Following a brief review of the literature, the 5 As framework for enhancing the effectiveness of health behavior counseling and the RE-AIM model for estimating and enhancing public health impact are used to frame discussion of the strengths and limitations of IM for diabetes shared decision making and self-management support. RESULTS: Data and lessons learned from a series of randomized trials of IM for diabetes self-management education are summarized around 2 key issues. The first is enhancing patient engagement in decision making and includes enhancing user experience and engagement, improving quality of care, and promoting collaborative action planning and follow-up. The second is getting such resources into place and sustaining them in real-world primary care settings and involves enhancing participation at patient, clinician, and health care system levels and enhancing the generalizability of results. CONCLUSIONS: . Key opportunities for IM to support diabetes self-management include assessment of information for shared decision making, assistance with problem-solving self-management challenges, and provision of follow-up support. A key current challenge is the linkage of IM supports to the rest of the patient's care, and collection of cost-effectiveness data is a key need for future research.
BACKGROUND:Diabetes self-management presents a series of challenging tasks, and primary care, where the majority of cases of adult diabetes are treated, is hard-pressed to address these issues given competing demands. This article discusses how interactive media (IM) can be used to support diabetes self-management. METHODS: Following a brief review of the literature, the 5 As framework for enhancing the effectiveness of health behavior counseling and the RE-AIM model for estimating and enhancing public health impact are used to frame discussion of the strengths and limitations of IM for diabetes shared decision making and self-management support. RESULTS: Data and lessons learned from a series of randomized trials of IM for diabetes self-management education are summarized around 2 key issues. The first is enhancing patient engagement in decision making and includes enhancing user experience and engagement, improving quality of care, and promoting collaborative action planning and follow-up. The second is getting such resources into place and sustaining them in real-world primary care settings and involves enhancing participation at patient, clinician, and health care system levels and enhancing the generalizability of results. CONCLUSIONS: . Key opportunities for IM to support diabetes self-management include assessment of information for shared decision making, assistance with problem-solving self-management challenges, and provision of follow-up support. A key current challenge is the linkage of IM supports to the rest of the patient's care, and collection of cost-effectiveness data is a key need for future research.
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: Linda Haas; Melinda Maryniuk; Joni Beck; Carla E Cox; Paulina Duker; Laura Edwards; Edwin B Fisher; Lenita Hanson; Daniel Kent; Leslie Kolb; Sue McLaughlin; Eric Orzeck; John D Piette; Andrew S Rhinehart; Russell Rothman; Sara Sklaroff; Donna Tomky; Gretchen Youssef Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Perry Dickinson; Lawrence Fisher; Steve Christiansen; Deborah J Toobert; Bruce G Bender; L Miriam Dickinson; Bonnie Jortberg; Paul A Estabrooks Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Linda Haas; Melinda Maryniuk; Joni Beck; Carla E Cox; Paulina Duker; Laura Edwards; Edwin B Fisher; Lenita Hanson; Daniel Kent; Leslie Kolb; Sue McLaughlin; Eric Orzeck; John D Piette; Andrew S Rhinehart; Russell Rothman; Sara Sklaroff; Donna Tomky; Gretchen Youssef Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Linda Haas; Melinda Maryniuk; Joni Beck; Carla E Cox; Paulina Duker; Laura Edwards; Edwin B Fisher; Lenita Hanson; Daniel Kent; Leslie Kolb; Sue McLaughlin; Eric Orzeck; John D Piette; Andrew S Rhinehart; Russell Rothman; Sara Sklaroff; Donna Tomky; Gretchen Youssef Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Alison Rowsell; Ingrid Muller; Elizabeth Murray; Paul Little; Christopher D Byrne; Kristin Ganahl; Gabriele Müller; Sarah Gibney; Courtney R Lyles; Antonia Lucas; Don Nutbeam; Lucy Yardley Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 5.428