Steven Shea1, Dhruva Kothari, Jeanne A Teresi, Jian Kong, Joseph P Eimicke, Rafael A Lantigua, Walter Palmas, Ruth S Weinstock. 1. Steven Shea, Rafael A. Lantigua, and Walter Palmas are with the Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY. At the time of this study, Dhruva Kothari was with the College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University. Jeanne A. Teresi, Jian Kong, and Joseph P. Eimicke are with the Research Division of the Hebrew Home at Riverdale, Bronx, NY. Jeanne A. Teresi is also with the Morris W. Stroud, III, Center for Studies on Quality of Life, Columbia University. Ruth S. Weinstock is with Joslin Diabetes Center and Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We examined the social impact of the telemedicine intervention effects in lower- and higher-socioeconomic status (SES) participants in the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) study. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing telemedicine case management with usual care, with blinded outcome evaluation, in 1665 Medicare recipients with diabetes, aged 55 years or older, residing in federally designated medically underserved areas of New York State. The primary trial endpoints were hemoglobinA1c (HbA1c), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure levels. RESULTS:HbA1c was higher in lower-income participants at the baseline examination. However, we found no evidence that the intervention increased disparities. A significant moderator effect was seen for HbA1c (P = .004) and systolic blood pressure (P = .023), with the lowest-income group showing greater intervention effects. CONCLUSIONS: Lower-SES participants in the IDEATel study benefited at least as much as higher-SES participants from telemedicine nurse case management for diabetes. Tailoring the intensity of the intervention based on clinical need may have led to greater improvements among those not at goal for diabetes control, a group that also had lower income, thereby avoiding the potential for an innovative intervention to widen socioeconomic disparities.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: We examined the social impact of the telemedicine intervention effects in lower- and higher-socioeconomic status (SES) participants in the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) study. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing telemedicine case management with usual care, with blinded outcome evaluation, in 1665 Medicare recipients with diabetes, aged 55 years or older, residing in federally designated medically underserved areas of New York State. The primary trial endpoints were hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure levels. RESULTS: HbA1c was higher in lower-income participants at the baseline examination. However, we found no evidence that the intervention increased disparities. A significant moderator effect was seen for HbA1c (P = .004) and systolic blood pressure (P = .023), with the lowest-income group showing greater intervention effects. CONCLUSIONS: Lower-SESparticipants in the IDEATel study benefited at least as much as higher-SESparticipants from telemedicine nurse case management for diabetes. Tailoring the intensity of the intervention based on clinical need may have led to greater improvements among those not at goal for diabetes control, a group that also had lower income, thereby avoiding the potential for an innovative intervention to widen socioeconomic disparities.
Authors: Justin Starren; George Hripcsak; Soumitra Sengupta; C R Abbruscato; Paul E Knudson; Ruth S Weinstock; Steven Shea Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Steven Shea; Justin Starren; Ruth S Weinstock; Paul E Knudson; Jeanne Teresi; Douglas Holmes; Walter Palmas; Lesley Field; Robin Goland; Catherine Tuck; George Hripcsak; Linnea Capps; David Liss Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Scott M Grundy; James I Cleeman; C Noel Bairey Merz; H Bryan Brewer; Luther T Clark; Donald B Hunninghake; Richard C Pasternak; Sidney C Smith; Neil J Stone Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-07-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tamar Pincus; Clare Miles; Robert Froud; Martin Underwood; Dawn Carnes; Stephanie J C Taylor Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: John A Batsis; Peter R DiMilia; Lillian M Seo; Karen L Fortuna; Meaghan A Kennedy; Heather B Blunt; Pamela J Bagley; Jessica Brooks; Emma Brooks; Soo Yeon Kim; Rebecca K Masutani; Martha L Bruce; Stephen J Bartels Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 5.562