Manel Pladevall1,2, George Divine3, Karen E Wells3, Ken Resnicow4, L Keoki Williams1,5. 1. Center for Health Policy and Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan (Dr Pladevall, Dr Williams) 2. Research Triangle Institute Health Solutions, Barcelona, Spain (Dr Pladevall) 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan (Dr Divine, Ms Wells) 4. Center for Health Communications Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Dr Resnicow) 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan (Dr Williams)
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether providing medication adherence information with or without motivational interviewing improves diabetes and lipid control. METHODS:Study participants were adult members of a health system in southeast Michigan, were using both oral diabetes and lipid-lowering medications, and had glycated hemoglobin (A1C) or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels not at goal. Participants were randomly assigned to receive usual care (UC), n = 567; have medication adherence information (AI) provided to their physician, n = 569; or have AI and receive motivational interviewing (MI) though trained staff (AI + MI), n = 556. Primary outcomes were A1C and LDL-C levels at 18 months post randomization. RESULTS: Primary outcomes were not significantly different between patients in the AI or AI + MI study arms when compared with UC. Similarly, neither oral diabetes nor lipid-lowering medication adherence was significantly different between groups. Patient participation in the AI + MI arm was low and limit the interpretation of the study results, but post hoc analysis of the AI + MI study arm showed that the number of MI sessions received was positively associated with only oral diabetes medication adherence. CONCLUSION: Neither AI nor MI significantly improved diabetes and lipid control when compared with UC. Moreover, patient participation appeared to be a particular barrier for MI.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether providing medication adherence information with or without motivational interviewing improves diabetes and lipid control. METHODS: Study participants were adult members of a health system in southeast Michigan, were using both oral diabetes and lipid-lowering medications, and had glycated hemoglobin (A1C) or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels not at goal. Participants were randomly assigned to receive usual care (UC), n = 567; have medication adherence information (AI) provided to their physician, n = 569; or have AI and receive motivational interviewing (MI) though trained staff (AI + MI), n = 556. Primary outcomes were A1C and LDL-C levels at 18 months post randomization. RESULTS: Primary outcomes were not significantly different between patients in the AI or AI + MI study arms when compared with UC. Similarly, neither oral diabetes nor lipid-lowering medication adherence was significantly different between groups. Patient participation in the AI + MI arm was low and limit the interpretation of the study results, but post hoc analysis of the AI + MI study arm showed that the number of MI sessions received was positively associated with only oral diabetes medication adherence. CONCLUSION: Neither AI nor MI significantly improved diabetes and lipid control when compared with UC. Moreover, patient participation appeared to be a particular barrier for MI.
Authors: Manel Pladevall; L Keoki Williams; Lisa Ann Potts; George Divine; Hugo Xi; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Shobha Phansalkar; Heleen van der Sijs; Alisha D Tucker; Amrita A Desai; Douglas S Bell; Jonathan M Teich; Blackford Middleton; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: P Michael Ho; John S Rumsfeld; Frederick A Masoudi; David L McClure; Mary E Plomondon; John F Steiner; David J Magid Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-09-25
Authors: Faustinus Onyirimba; Andrea Apter; Susan Reisine; Mark Litt; Corliss McCusker; MaryLou Connors; Richard ZuWallack Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Julie A Schmittdiel; Connie S Uratsu; Andrew J Karter; Michele Heisler; Usha Subramanian; Carol M Mangione; Joe V Selby Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: David A Adler; Julie Irish; Thomas J McLaughlin; Carla Perissinotto; Hong Chang; Maggie Hood; Leueen Lapitsky; William H Rogers; Debra Lerner Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Mieke L van Driel; Michael D Morledge; Robin Ulep; Johnathon P Shaffer; Philippa Davies; Richard Deichmann Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-12-21
Authors: Khalida Ismail; Kirsty Winkley; Nicole de Zoysa; Anita Patel; Margaret Heslin; Helen Graves; Stephen Thomas; Dominic Stringer; Daniel Stahl; Stephanie A Amiel Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Suan Ee Ong; Joel Jun Kai Koh; Sue-Anne Ee Shiow Toh; Kee Seng Chia; Dina Balabanova; Martin McKee; Pablo Perel; Helena Legido-Quigley Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David J T Campbell; Marcello Tonelli; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Chad Mitchell; Ross Tsuyuki; Noah Ivers; Tavis Campbell; Raj Pannu; Eric Verkerke; Scott Klarenbach; Kathryn King-Shier; Peter Faris; Derek Exner; Vikas Chaubey; Braden Manns Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 7.327