INTRODUCTION: Previous work has indicated that for patients with diabetes, there is value in understanding glycemic control. Despite these findings, patient understanding of the hemoglobin A1C value (A1C) is notably poor. In this study, we test the effect of two alternative communication formats of the A1C on improving glycemic control among patients with poorly controlled diabetes. METHODS: 177 patients with poorly controlled diabetes were randomized to one of three study arms that varied in the information they received: (1) a "diabetes report card" containing individualized information about glycemic control for each participant with letter grades ranging from A to F; (2) a "report card" containing a face whose emotion reflected current glycemic control; or (3) a "report card" with glycemic control expressed with the A1C value (standard arm). The primary study outcome was change in A1C at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in participant perceptions of their glycemic control. RESULTS: The average A1C for enrolled participants was 9.9 % (S.D. 1.7) and did not differ significantly among study arms. We noted no significant differences in change in A1C at 6 months between the standard and experimental arms. Using multiple imputation to account for missing A1C values, the changes in A1C for the letter grade, face, and standard arms were -0.55 % (-1.15, 0.05), -0.89 % (-1.49, -0.29), and -0.74 % (-1.51, 0.029), respectively (p = 0.67 for control vs. grade, p = 0.76 for control vs. face). DISCUSSION: Feedback to patients with poorly controlled diabetes in the form of letter grades and faces did not differentially impact glycemic control at 6 months or participant perceptions of current control. These efforts to improve communication and patient understanding of disease management targets need further refinement to significantly impact diabetes outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT01143870.
INTRODUCTION: Previous work has indicated that for patients with diabetes, there is value in understanding glycemic control. Despite these findings, patient understanding of the hemoglobin A1C value (A1C) is notably poor. In this study, we test the effect of two alternative communication formats of the A1C on improving glycemic control among patients with poorly controlled diabetes. METHODS: 177 patients with poorly controlled diabetes were randomized to one of three study arms that varied in the information they received: (1) a "diabetes report card" containing individualized information about glycemic control for each participant with letter grades ranging from A to F; (2) a "report card" containing a face whose emotion reflected current glycemic control; or (3) a "report card" with glycemic control expressed with the A1C value (standard arm). The primary study outcome was change in A1C at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in participant perceptions of their glycemic control. RESULTS: The average A1C for enrolled participants was 9.9 % (S.D. 1.7) and did not differ significantly among study arms. We noted no significant differences in change in A1C at 6 months between the standard and experimental arms. Using multiple imputation to account for missing A1C values, the changes in A1C for the letter grade, face, and standard arms were -0.55 % (-1.15, 0.05), -0.89 % (-1.49, -0.29), and -0.74 % (-1.51, 0.029), respectively (p = 0.67 for control vs. grade, p = 0.76 for control vs. face). DISCUSSION: Feedback to patients with poorly controlled diabetes in the form of letter grades and faces did not differentially impact glycemic control at 6 months or participant perceptions of current control. These efforts to improve communication and patient understanding of disease management targets need further refinement to significantly impact diabetes outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT01143870.
Authors: David M Nathan; John B Buse; Mayer B Davidson; Robert J Heine; Rury R Holman; Robert Sherwin; Bernard Zinman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Judith A Long; Erica C Jahnle; Diane M Richardson; George Loewenstein; Kevin G Volpp Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Neda Ratanawongsa; Andrew J Karter; Melissa M Parker; Courtney R Lyles; Michele Heisler; Howard H Moffet; Nancy Adler; E Margaret Warton; Dean Schillinger Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Shiqi Wang; Gabriella Tikellis; Nathan Wong; Tien Yin Wong; Jie Jin Wang Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2008-05-02 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Kerri Cavanaugh; Mary Margaret Huizinga; Kenneth A Wallston; Tebeb Gebretsadik; Ayumi Shintani; Dianne Davis; Rebecca Pratt Gregory; Lynn Fuchs; Robb Malone; Andrea Cherrington; Michael Pignone; Darren A DeWalt; Tom A Elasy; Russell L Rothman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kevin G Volpp; Leslie K John; Andrea B Troxel; Laurie Norton; Jennifer Fassbender; George Loewenstein Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Chandra Y Osborn; Kerri Cavanaugh; Kenneth A Wallston; Richard O White; Russell L Rothman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-04-28 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Anjali Gopalan; Leah Suttner; Andrea B Troxel; Kevin McDonough; Marilyn M Schapira Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 2.655