OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to demonstrate the feasibility of telehealth technology to provide a team approach to diabetes care for rural patients and determine its effect on patient outcomes when compared with face-to-face diabetes visits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An evaluation of a patient-centered interdisciplinary team approach to diabetes management compared telehealth with face-to-face visits on receipt of recommended preventive guidelines, vascular risk factor control, patient satisfaction, and diabetes self-management at baseline and 1, 2, and 3 years postintervention. RESULTS: One-year postintervention the receipt of recommended dilated eye exams increased 31% and 43% among telehealth and face-to-face patients, respectively (p=0.28). Control of two or more risk factors increased 37% and 69% (p=0.21). Patient diabetes care satisfaction rates increased 191% and 131% among telehealth and face-to-face patients, respectively (p=0.51). A comparison of telehealth with face-to-face patients resulted in increased self-reported blood glucose monitoring as instructed (97% vs. 89%; p=0.63) and increased dietary adherence (244% vs. 159%; p=0.86), respectively. Receipt of a monofilament foot test showed a significantly greater improvement among face-to-face patients (17% vs. 35%; p=0.01) at 1 year postintervention, but this difference disappeared in years 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth proved to be an effective mode for the provision of diabetes care to rural patients. Few differences were detected in the delivery of a team approach to diabetes management via telehealth compared with face-to-face visits on receipt of preventive care services, vascular risk factor control, patient satisfaction, and patient self-management. A team approach using telehealth may be a viable strategy for addressing the unique challenges faced by patients living in rural communities.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to demonstrate the feasibility of telehealth technology to provide a team approach to diabetes care for rural patients and determine its effect on patient outcomes when compared with face-to-face diabetes visits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An evaluation of a patient-centered interdisciplinary team approach to diabetes management compared telehealth with face-to-face visits on receipt of recommended preventive guidelines, vascular risk factor control, patient satisfaction, and diabetes self-management at baseline and 1, 2, and 3 years postintervention. RESULTS: One-year postintervention the receipt of recommended dilated eye exams increased 31% and 43% among telehealth and face-to-face patients, respectively (p=0.28). Control of two or more risk factors increased 37% and 69% (p=0.21). Patientdiabetes care satisfaction rates increased 191% and 131% among telehealth and face-to-face patients, respectively (p=0.51). A comparison of telehealth with face-to-face patients resulted in increased self-reported blood glucose monitoring as instructed (97% vs. 89%; p=0.63) and increased dietary adherence (244% vs. 159%; p=0.86), respectively. Receipt of a monofilament foot test showed a significantly greater improvement among face-to-face patients (17% vs. 35%; p=0.01) at 1 year postintervention, but this difference disappeared in years 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth proved to be an effective mode for the provision of diabetes care to rural patients. Few differences were detected in the delivery of a team approach to diabetes management via telehealth compared with face-to-face visits on receipt of preventive care services, vascular risk factor control, patient satisfaction, and patient self-management. A team approach using telehealth may be a viable strategy for addressing the unique challenges faced by patients living in rural communities.
Authors: H Peter Chase; Jerusha A Pearson; Clare Wightman; Mary D Roberts; Adam D Oderberg; Satish K Garg Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Richard M Davis; Angela D Hitch; Muhammad M Salaam; William H Herman; Ingrid E Zimmer-Galler; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-05-18 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: E J Gómez; M E Hernando; A García; F Del Pozo; J Cermeño; R Corcoy; E Brugués; A De Leiva Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.428
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: Jane Hsieh; Andrea F Honda; Mayte Suárez-Fariñas; C Michael Samson; Sanjay Kedhar; John Mauro; Jasmine Francis; Jason Badamo; Vicente A Diaz; John H Kempen; Paul A Latkany Journal: Can J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 1.882