Olveen Carrasquillo1, Cynthia Lebron1, Yisel Alonzo2, Hua Li3, Aileen Chang4, Sonjia Kenya1. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida2Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida3Mrs Alonzo is no longer at the University of Miami. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida2Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida4now affiliated with Department of Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.
Abstract
Importance: Community health worker (CHW) intervention is a promising approach to address type 2 diabetes among Latinos. However, evidence from randomized clinical studies is limited. Objective: To compare a CHW intervention with enhanced usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 52-week, single-blind, randomized clinical trial included 300 Latino adults aged 18 to 65 years who were treated in 2 public hospital outpatient clinics in Miami-Dade County, Florida, from July 1, 2010, through October 31, 2013. Eligible participants had a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 8.0 or greater. Follow-up was completed January 31, 2015, and data were analyzed from March 10, 2015, to June 6, 2016. Interventions: A 1-year CHW intervention consisted of home visits, telephone calls, and group-level activities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) levels, and HbA1c levels. Secondary outcomes included body mass index, medication regimen intensification, and self-reported measures of diet, physical activity, and medication regimen adherence. Results: Of the 300 participants randomized (135 men [45%] and 165 women [55%]; mean [SD] age, 55.2 [7.0] years), we obtained follow-up data on 215 (71.7%). Participants in the CHW group received a median of 4 home visits and 20 telephone calls. After adjusting for baseline values and covariates, participants in the CHW group had an HbA1c level that was 0.51% lower (95% CI, -0.94% to -0.08%) than that of participants in the enhanced usual care group. The reduction in SBP of 4.62 mm Hg (95% CI, -9.01 to -0.24 mm Hg) did not meet the preplanned target of 8 mm Hg and was not statistically significant in unadjusted models. No significant differences in LDLC levels (mean difference, -8.2 mg/dL; 95% CI, -18.8 to 2.3 mg/dL) or any of the preplanned secondary outcomes were observed. Post hoc analyses suggest that the intervention may be more beneficial among those with worse control of their type 2 diabetes at baseline. Conclusions and Relevance: Among Latinos with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, a 12-month CHW intervention lowered HbA1c levels by 0.51%. The intervention did not lead to improvements in LDLC levels, and the findings with respect to SBP were variable and half of what was targeted. Future studies should examine whether CHW interventions affect other measures, such as access to health care or social determinants of health. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01152957.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Community health worker (CHW) intervention is a promising approach to address type 2 diabetes among Latinos. However, evidence from randomized clinical studies is limited. Objective: To compare a CHW intervention with enhanced usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 52-week, single-blind, randomized clinical trial included 300 Latino adults aged 18 to 65 years who were treated in 2 public hospital outpatient clinics in Miami-Dade County, Florida, from July 1, 2010, through October 31, 2013. Eligible participants had a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 8.0 or greater. Follow-up was completed January 31, 2015, and data were analyzed from March 10, 2015, to June 6, 2016. Interventions: A 1-year CHW intervention consisted of home visits, telephone calls, and group-level activities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) levels, and HbA1c levels. Secondary outcomes included body mass index, medication regimen intensification, and self-reported measures of diet, physical activity, and medication regimen adherence. Results: Of the 300 participants randomized (135 men [45%] and 165 women [55%]; mean [SD] age, 55.2 [7.0] years), we obtained follow-up data on 215 (71.7%). Participants in the CHW group received a median of 4 home visits and 20 telephone calls. After adjusting for baseline values and covariates, participants in the CHW group had an HbA1c level that was 0.51% lower (95% CI, -0.94% to -0.08%) than that of participants in the enhanced usual care group. The reduction in SBP of 4.62 mm Hg (95% CI, -9.01 to -0.24 mm Hg) did not meet the preplanned target of 8 mm Hg and was not statistically significant in unadjusted models. No significant differences in LDLC levels (mean difference, -8.2 mg/dL; 95% CI, -18.8 to 2.3 mg/dL) or any of the preplanned secondary outcomes were observed. Post hoc analyses suggest that the intervention may be more beneficial among those with worse control of their type 2 diabetes at baseline. Conclusions and Relevance: Among Latinos with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, a 12-month CHW intervention lowered HbA1c levels by 0.51%. The intervention did not lead to improvements in LDLC levels, and the findings with respect to SBP were variable and half of what was targeted. Future studies should examine whether CHW interventions affect other measures, such as access to health care or social determinants of health. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01152957.
Authors: Arshiya A Baig; Amanda Benitez; Cara A Locklin; Yue Gao; Sang Mee Lee; Michael T Quinn; Marla C Solomon; Lisa Sánchez-Johnsen; Deborah L Burnet; Marshall H Chin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Byamah Brian Mutamba; Nadja van Ginneken; Lucy Smith Paintain; Simon Wandiembe; David Schellenberg Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-10-13 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Elizabeth A Rogers; Sarah Turcotte Manser; Joan Cleary; Anne M Joseph; Eileen M Harwood; Kathleen T Call Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Lisa K Sharp; Jessica J Tilton; Daniel R Touchette; Yinglin Xia; Daniel Mihailescu; Michael L Berbaum; Ben S Gerber Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Andrea J Apter; A Russell Localio; Knashawn H Morales; Xiaoyan Han; Luzmercy Perez; Alyssa N Mullen; Marisa Rogers; Heather Klusaritz; John T Howell; Maryori N Canales; Tyra Bryant-Stephens Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Lee Ling Lim; Eric S H Lau; Alice P S Kong; Melanie J Davies; Naomi S Levitt; Björn Eliasson; Carlos A Aguilar-Salinas; Guang Ning; Yutaka Seino; Wing Yee So; Margaret McGill; Graham D Ogle; Trevor J Orchard; Philip Clarke; Rury R Holman; Edward W Gregg; Juan José Gagliardino; Juliana C N Chan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Stephanie L Fitzpatrick; Dea Papajorgji-Taylor; Jennifer L Schneider; Nangel Lindberg; Melanie Francisco; Ning Smith; Katie Vaughn; Elizabeth A Vrany; Felicia Hill-Briggs Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 3.626
Authors: Elizabeth Lockhart; DeAnne Turner; Dinorah Martinez-Tyson; Julie A Baldwin; Stephanie L Marhefka Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2021 Mar-Apr 01
Authors: Sarah E Moore; Megan McMullan; Claire T McEvoy; Michelle C McKinley; Jayne V Woodside Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 4.022