Paula M Trief1,2, Lawrence Fisher3, Jonathan Sandberg4, Donald A Cibula5, Jacqueline Dimmock6, Danielle M Hessler3, Patricia Forken6, Ruth S Weinstock2. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY triefp@upstate.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY. 3. Department of Family Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 4. School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. 5. Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY. 6. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare glycemic control and secondary outcomes of a 4-month telephonic couples behavioral intervention to individual intervention, and to education, for adults with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized trial with the following three arms: couples calls (CC) (n = 104); individual calls (IC) (n = 94); and diabetes education (DE) (n = 82). All arms had self-management education (two calls). CC and IC had 10 additional behavior change calls. CC addressed collaboration and relationships/communication. Participants consisted of 280 couples, among whom one partner had type 2 diabetes and an A1C level ≥7.5%. Blinded assessments occurred at 4, 8, and 12 months. The primary outcome was change in A1C; and secondary outcomes were BMI, waist circumference, blood pressure, depressive symptoms, diabetes self-efficacy, and diabetes distress. RESULTS:Patients had a mean age of 56.8 years; 61.6% were male, and 30.4% were minorities. The baseline mean A1C level was 9.1%. Intention-to-treat analyses found significant A1C reductions for all (12 months: CC -0.47%, IC -0.52%, DE -0.57%), with no differences between arms. Preplanned within-arm analyses were stratified by baseline A1C tertiles: lowest tertile (7.5-8.2%), no change from baseline; middle tertile (8.3-9.2%), only CC led to significantly lower A1C level; and highest tertile (≥9.3%), significant improvement for all interventions. For BMI, CC showed significant improvement, and CC and DE led to decreased waist circumference. The IC group showed greater blood pressure improvement. Results for secondary psychosocial outcomes favored the CC group. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, a collaborative couples intervention resulted in significant, lasting improvement in A1C levels, obesity measures, and some psychosocial outcomes. For those with exceedingly high A1C levels, education alone was beneficial, but additional intervention is needed to achieve glycemic targets.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare glycemic control and secondary outcomes of a 4-month telephonic couples behavioral intervention to individual intervention, and to education, for adults with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized trial with the following three arms: couples calls (CC) (n = 104); individual calls (IC) (n = 94); and diabetes education (DE) (n = 82). All arms had self-management education (two calls). CC and IC had 10 additional behavior change calls. CC addressed collaboration and relationships/communication. Participants consisted of 280 couples, among whom one partner had type 2 diabetes and an A1C level ≥7.5%. Blinded assessments occurred at 4, 8, and 12 months. The primary outcome was change in A1C; and secondary outcomes were BMI, waist circumference, blood pressure, depressive symptoms, diabetes self-efficacy, and diabetes distress. RESULTS:Patients had a mean age of 56.8 years; 61.6% were male, and 30.4% were minorities. The baseline mean A1C level was 9.1%. Intention-to-treat analyses found significant A1C reductions for all (12 months: CC -0.47%, IC -0.52%, DE -0.57%), with no differences between arms. Preplanned within-arm analyses were stratified by baseline A1C tertiles: lowest tertile (7.5-8.2%), no change from baseline; middle tertile (8.3-9.2%), only CC led to significantly lower A1C level; and highest tertile (≥9.3%), significant improvement for all interventions. For BMI, CC showed significant improvement, and CC and DE led to decreased waist circumference. The IC group showed greater blood pressure improvement. Results for secondary psychosocial outcomes favored the CC group. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, a collaborative couples intervention resulted in significant, lasting improvement in A1C levels, obesity measures, and some psychosocial outcomes. For those with exceedingly high A1C levels, education alone was beneficial, but additional intervention is needed to achieve glycemic targets.
Authors: Ian Duncan; Christian Birkmeyer; Sheryl Coughlin; Qijuan Emily Li; Dawn Sherr; Sue Boren Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Sarah Stark Casagrande; Judith E Fradkin; Sharon H Saydah; Keith F Rust; Catherine C Cowie Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Emily C Soriano; James M Lenhard; Jeffrey S Gonzalez; Howard Tennen; Sy-Miin Chow; Amy K Otto; Christine Perndorfer; Biing-Jiun Shen; Scott D Siegel; Jean-Philippe Laurenceau Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2021-03-16
Authors: Jonathan Sandberg; Jeremy B Yorgason; Lawrence Fisher; Ruth S Weinstock; Danielle Hessler; Jacqueline Dimmock; Paula M Trief Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2017-02-05 Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Marisa E Hilliard; Charles G Minard; David G Marrero; Maartje de Wit; Stephanie N DuBose; Alandra Verdejo; Sarah S Jaser; Davida Kruger; Roshanak Monzavi; Viral N Shah; R Paul Wadwa; Ruth S Weinstock; Debbe Thompson; Viena T Cao; Barbara J Anderson Journal: Fam Syst Health Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 1.569
Authors: Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla; Oscar J Ponce; Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez; Neri Alvarez-Villalobos; Patricia J Erwin; Laura Larrea-Mantilla; Anne Rogers; Victor M Montori Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 2.692