| Literature DB >> 25954817 |
Vallabh O Shah1, Casey Carroll1, Ryan Mals1, Donica Ghahate1, Jeanette Bobelu1, Phillip Sandy1, Kathleen Colleran1, Ronald Schrader1, Thomas Faber2, Mark R Burge1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: One in three people will be diagnosed with diabetes by 2050, and the proportion will likely be higher among Native Americans. Diabetes control is currently suboptimal in underserved populations despite a plethora of new therapies. Patient empowerment is a key determinant of diabetes control, but such empowerment can be difficult to achieve due to resource limitation and cultural, language and health literacy barriers. We describe a home-based educational intervention using Community Health Representatives (CHRs), leading to improvement in Patient Activation Measures scores and clinical indicators of diabetes control.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25954817 PMCID: PMC4425648 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125820
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Pragmatic trial of educational intervention—CONSORT Participant Flow Chart – Study Design.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of fasting study participants at baseline and at 6 month of follow-up.
| Baseline Values (n = 60) (Mean ± SD) or Median [Interquartile Range] | Six Months Follow-up Values (n = 60) (Mean ± SD) or Median [Interquartile Range] | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 33.8 ± 8.4 | 32.4 ± 8.2 | 0.001 |
|
| 158.6 ± 69.9 | 134.8 ±45.5 | 0.0003 |
|
| 8.12 ± 2.16 | 7.39 ± 1.6 | 0.001 |
|
| 159.4 ± 37.1 | 147.9 ± 31.4 | 0.003 |
|
| 161.0 [111.0, 233.5] | 123.0 [98.0, 192.0] | 0.001 |
|
| 14.0 [11.0, 19.0] | 14.5 [10.0, 24.0] | 0.027 |
|
| 0.80 [0.7, 1.00] | 0.80 [0.7, 1.00] | 0.33 |
|
| 34.5 [15.0, 114.9] | 52.3 [18.4, 337.2] | 0.017 |
|
| 5.1± 1.8 | 4.8± 1.6 | 0.115 |
* Median [Lower Quartile, Upper Quartile].
Fig 2Agreement plots (n = 60).
For each clinical parameter, the patient’s value at baseline screening (time 1) is on the horizontal axis and the 6-month follow-up value (time 2) is on the vertical axis. The plotted line is the line of perfect agreement between times 1 and 2. Points below the line represent a decrease from time 1 to time 2, while points above the line represent an increase from time 1 to time 2.
Fig 3Regression analysis showing changes in clinical parameters vs. changes in PAM levels (n = 60).
For each clinical parameter the change in PAM level from baseline to 6 months is depicted on the horizontal axis and change in the clinical parameter from baseline to 6 months is depicted on the vertical axis. Reported values are Spearman’s rho (nonparametric correlation coefficient), and the corresponding p-value (calculated on original, not jittered values). A more sophisticated regression analysis adjusting for age, gender and baseline values had similar p-values and is not shown.