Sarina Fazio1, Jennifer Edwards2, Sheridan Miyamoto3, Stuart Henderson4, Madan Dharmar5, Heather M Young6. 1. Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA; UC Davis Medical Center, UC Davis Health. Electronic address: safazio@ucdavis.edu. 2. Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA. Electronic address: Jjedwards@ucdavis.edu. 3. College of Nursing, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA. Electronic address: smiyamoto@psu.edu. 4. Schools of Health Evaluation, Clinical and Translational Science Center, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA. Electronic address: sthenderson@ucdavis.edu. 5. Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA; Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing University of California, Davis, Sacramento, USA. Electronic address: mdharmar@ucdavis.edu. 6. Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA. Electronic address: hmyoung@ucdavis.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Success in diabetes research and self-management is often defined as a significant decrease in glycated hemoglobin (A1C). The aim of this article is to explore different types of successes experienced by adults with type-2 diabetes participating in a health technology and nurse coaching clinical trial. METHODS: A qualitative analysis was conducted using surveys and documentation from motivational interview-based coaching sessions between study nurses and intervention participants. RESULTS: Of the 132 cases reviewed, types of success predominantly fell into five categories: 1) change in health behaviors; 2) change in mindset or awareness; 3) change in engagement with healthcare resources; 4) change in physical or emotional health; and 5) change in health indicators. CONCLUSION: Experiences of success in diabetes are more varied than traditional A1C-based outcome models. Our findings suggest coaching and technology can assist patients to achieve a range of successes in diabetes management through goal setting, health tracking, resolving barriers, and aligning goals with factors that impact change. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: While A1C reduction is a critical factor in decreasing risk of diabetes-related complications, when healthcare professionals focus on A1C as the main indicator of diabetes management success, important changes in individuals' health and well-being may be overlooked or undervalued.
OBJECTIVE: Success in diabetes research and self-management is often defined as a significant decrease in glycated hemoglobin (A1C). The aim of this article is to explore different types of successes experienced by adults with type-2 diabetes participating in a health technology and nurse coaching clinical trial. METHODS: A qualitative analysis was conducted using surveys and documentation from motivational interview-based coaching sessions between study nurses and intervention participants. RESULTS: Of the 132 cases reviewed, types of success predominantly fell into five categories: 1) change in health behaviors; 2) change in mindset or awareness; 3) change in engagement with healthcare resources; 4) change in physical or emotional health; and 5) change in health indicators. CONCLUSION: Experiences of success in diabetes are more varied than traditional A1C-based outcome models. Our findings suggest coaching and technology can assist patients to achieve a range of successes in diabetes management through goal setting, health tracking, resolving barriers, and aligning goals with factors that impact change. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: While A1C reduction is a critical factor in decreasing risk of diabetes-related complications, when healthcare professionals focus on A1C as the main indicator of diabetes management success, important changes in individuals' health and well-being may be overlooked or undervalued.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Margaret Handley; Kate MacGregor; Dean Schillinger; Claire Sharifi; Sharon Wong; Thomas Bodenheimer Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2006 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Gunjan Y Gandhi; M Hassan Murad; Akira Fujiyoshi; Rebecca J Mullan; David N Flynn; Mohamed B Elamin; Brian A Swiglo; William L Isley; Gordon H Guyatt; Victor M Montori Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Martine Stead; Angela M Craigie; Maureen Macleod; Jennifer McKell; Stephen Caswell; Robert J C Steele; Annie S Anderson Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 6.457