Karen M Emmons1, Elaine Puleo2, Mary L Greaney3, Matthew W Gillman4, Gary G Bennett5, Jess Haines6, Kim Sprunck-Harrild7, K Viswanath7. 1. Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, 1800 Harrison Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. Electronic address: Karen.m.emmons@kp.org. 2. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA. 3. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA. 4. Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Duke University, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Box 90086, 417 Chapel Drive, Durham NC 27708-0086. 6. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 7. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Healthy Directions 2 (HD2) intervention in the primary care setting. METHODS: HD2 was a cluster randomized trial (conducted 3/09-11/11). The primary sampling unit was provider (n=33), with secondary sampling of patients within provider (n=2440). Study arms included: 1) usual care (UC); 2) HD2--a patient self-guided intervention targeting 5 risk behaviors; and 3) HD2 plus 2 brief telephone coaching calls (HD2+CC). The outcome measure was the proportion of participants with a lower multiple risk behavior (MRB) score by follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, only 4% of the participants met all behavioral recommendations. Both HD2 and HD2+CC led to improvements in MRB score, relative to UC, with no differences between the two HD2 conditions. Twenty-eight percent of the UC participants had improved MRB scores at 6 months, vs. 39% and 43% in HD2 and HD2+CC, respectively (ps≤.001); results were similar at 18 months (p≤.05). The incremental cost of one risk factor reduction in MRB score was $310 for HD2 and $450 for HD2+CC. CONCLUSIONS:Self-guided and coached intervention conditions had equivalent levels of effect in reducing multiple chronic disease risk factors, were relatively low cost, and thus are potentially useful for routine implementation in similar health settings.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Healthy Directions 2 (HD2) intervention in the primary care setting. METHODS: HD2 was a cluster randomized trial (conducted 3/09-11/11). The primary sampling unit was provider (n=33), with secondary sampling of patients within provider (n=2440). Study arms included: 1) usual care (UC); 2) HD2--a patient self-guided intervention targeting 5 risk behaviors; and 3) HD2 plus 2 brief telephone coaching calls (HD2+CC). The outcome measure was the proportion of participants with a lower multiple risk behavior (MRB) score by follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, only 4% of the participants met all behavioral recommendations. Both HD2 and HD2+CC led to improvements in MRB score, relative to UC, with no differences between the two HD2 conditions. Twenty-eight percent of the UC participants had improved MRB scores at 6 months, vs. 39% and 43% in HD2 and HD2+CC, respectively (ps≤.001); results were similar at 18 months (p≤.05). The incremental cost of one risk factor reduction in MRB score was $310 for HD2 and $450 for HD2+CC. CONCLUSIONS: Self-guided and coached intervention conditions had equivalent levels of effect in reducing multiple chronic disease risk factors, were relatively low cost, and thus are potentially useful for routine implementation in similar health settings.
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Lawrence W Green; Lisa M Klesges; David B Abrams; Edwin B Fisher; Michael G Goldstein; Laura L Hayman; Judith K Ockene; C Tracy Orleans Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2006-04
Authors: R W Jeffery; J L Forster; S A French; S H Kelder; H A Lando; P G McGovern; D R Jacobs; J E Baxter Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Debra P Ritzwoller; Anna S Sukhanova; Russell E Glasgow; Lisa A Strycker; Diane K King; Bridget Gaglio; Deborah J Toobert Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: An Pan; Qi Sun; Adam M Bernstein; Matthias B Schulze; JoAnn E Manson; Meir J Stampfer; Walter C Willett; Frank B Hu Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-03-12
Authors: W C Willett; L Sampson; M J Stampfer; B Rosner; C Bain; J Witschi; C H Hennekens; F E Speizer Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1985-07 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: M Serdula; R Coates; T Byers; A Mokdad; S Jewell; N Chávez; J Mares-Perlman; P Newcomb; C Ritenbaugh; F Treiber Journal: Epidemiology Date: 1993-09 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: P L Pirie; C M McBride; W Hellerstedt; R W Jeffery; D Hatsukami; S Allen; H Lando Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1992-09 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Darryl Somayaji; Amanda C Blok; Laura L Hayman; Yolanda Colson; Michael Jaklisch; Mary E Cooley Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Mary L Greaney; Kim Sprunck-Harrild; Kathryn J Ruddy; Jennifer Ligibel; William T Barry; Emily Baker; Meghan Meyer; Karen M Emmons; Ann H Partridge Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Mary L Greaney; Zachary J Kunicki; Megan M Drohan; Christie L Ward-Ritacco; Deborah Riebe; Steven A Cohen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Ana María Salinas Martínez; Ruth Isabel Gómez Campusano; Hid Felizardo Cordero Franco; Karen Abigail Chávez Barrón; Cecilia Janeth Gutiérrez Sauceda; Francisco Javier Guzmán de la Garza; Georgina Mayela Núñez Rocha Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 3.390