BACKGROUND:Diabetes educators and self-management programs are scarce in rural communities, where diabetes is the third highest-ranking health concern. The goal of this study was to evaluate the benefits of nurse telehealth coaching for persons with diabetes living in rural communities through a person-centered approach using motivational interviewing (MI) techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized experimental study design was used to assign participants to receive either nurse telehealth coaching for five sessions (intervention group) or usual care (control group). Outcomes were measured in both groups using the Diabetes Empowerment Scale (DES), SF-12, and satisfaction surveys. Mean scores for each outcome were compared at baseline and at the 9-month follow-up for both groups using a Student's t test. We also evaluated the change from baseline by estimating the difference in differences (pre- and postintervention) using regression methods. RESULTS: Among the 101 participants included in the analysis, 51 receivednurse telehealth coaching, and 50 received usual care. We found significantly higher self-efficacy scores in the intervention group compared with the control group based on the DES at 9 months (4.03 versus 3.64, respectively; p<0.05) and the difference in difference estimation (0.42; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The nurse MI/telehealth coaching model used in this study shows promise as an effective intervention for diabetes self-management in rural communities. The sustained effect on outcomes observed in the intervention group suggests that this model could be a feasible intervention for long-term behavioral change among persons living with chronic disease in rural communities.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Diabetes educators and self-management programs are scarce in rural communities, where diabetes is the third highest-ranking health concern. The goal of this study was to evaluate the benefits of nurse telehealth coaching for persons with diabetes living in rural communities through a person-centered approach using motivational interviewing (MI) techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized experimental study design was used to assign participants to receive either nurse telehealth coaching for five sessions (intervention group) or usual care (control group). Outcomes were measured in both groups using the Diabetes Empowerment Scale (DES), SF-12, and satisfaction surveys. Mean scores for each outcome were compared at baseline and at the 9-month follow-up for both groups using a Student's t test. We also evaluated the change from baseline by estimating the difference in differences (pre- and postintervention) using regression methods. RESULTS: Among the 101 participants included in the analysis, 51 received nurse telehealth coaching, and 50 received usual care. We found significantly higher self-efficacy scores in the intervention group compared with the control group based on the DES at 9 months (4.03 versus 3.64, respectively; p<0.05) and the difference in difference estimation (0.42; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The nurse MI/telehealth coaching model used in this study shows promise as an effective intervention for diabetes self-management in rural communities. The sustained effect on outcomes observed in the intervention group suggests that this model could be a feasible intervention for long-term behavioral change among persons living with chronic disease in rural communities.
Authors: Robert M Anderson; James T Fitzgerald; Larry D Gruppen; Martha M Funnell; Mary S Oh Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Linda M Siminerio; Scott R Drab; Robert A Gabbay; Kathleen Gold; Sue McLaughlin; Gretchen A Piatt; Joe Solowiejczyk; Richard Weil Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2008 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Daniela L Stan; Susanne M Cutshall; Tammy F Adams; Karthik Ghosh; Matthew M Clark; Kaisa C Wieneke; Esayas B Kebede; Bonnie J Donelan Dunlap; Kathryn J Ruddy; Jennifer K Hazelton; Alissa M Butts; Sarah M Jenkins; Ivana T Croghan; Brent A Bauer Journal: Clin J Oncol Nurs Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 1.027
Authors: Sarina Fazio; Jennifer Edwards; Sheridan Miyamoto; Stuart Henderson; Madan Dharmar; Heather M Young Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2018-08-23
Authors: Charlene C Quinn; Bilal Khokhar; Kelly Weed; Erik Barr; Ann L Gruber-Baldini Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Perry M Gee; Deborah A Greenwood; Debora A Paterniti; Deborah Ward; Lisa M Soederberg Miller Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Lu Hu; Paige Illiano; Mary Lou Pompeii; Collin J Popp; Anna Y Kharmats; Margaret Curran; Katherine Perdomo; Shirley Chen; Michael Bergman; Eran Segal; Mary Ann Sevick Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: John G Lawrenson; Ella Graham-Rowe; Fabiana Lorencatto; Jennifer Burr; Catey Bunce; Jillian J Francis; Patricia Aluko; Stephen Rice; Luke Vale; Tunde Peto; Justin Presseau; Noah Ivers; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-01-15
Authors: Sheridan W Miyamoto; Stuart Henderson; Heather M Young; Amit Pande; Jay J Han Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 4.773