Richard O White1, Rosette James Chakkalakal2, Kenneth A Wallston3, Kathleen Wolff4, Becky Gregory5, Dianne Davis5, David Schlundt6, Karen M Trochez3, Shari Barto3, Laura A Harris7, Aihua Bian8, Jonathan S Schildcrout8, Sunil Kripalani2,3, Russell L Rothman2,3. 1. Division of Community Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. white.richard@mayo.edu. 2. Department of General Internal Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 3. Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 4. School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 5. Vanderbilt Diabetes Research and Training Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 6. Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. 7. Mid-Cumberland Regional Office, Tennessee Department of Health , Nashville, TN, USA. 8. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective type 2 diabetes care remains a challenge for patients including those receiving primary care in safety net settings. OBJECTIVE: The Partnership to Improve Diabetes Education (PRIDE) trial team and leaders from a regional department of health evaluated approaches to improve care for vulnerable patients. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: Adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes seeking care across 10 unblinded, randomly assigned safety net clinics in Middle TN. INTERVENTIONS: A literacy-sensitive, provider-focused, health communication intervention (PRIDE; 5 clinics) vs. standard diabetes education (5 clinics). MAIN MEASURES: Participant-level primary outcome was glycemic control [A1c] at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included select health behaviors and psychosocial aspects of care at 12 and 24 months. Adjusted mixed effects regression models were used to examine the comparative effectiveness of each approach to care. KEY RESULTS: Of 410 patients enrolled, 364 (89%) were included in analyses. Median age was 51 years; Black and Hispanic patients represented 18% and 25%; 96% were uninsured, and 82% had low annual income level (< $20,000); adequate health literacy was seen in 83%, but numeracy deficits were common. At 12 months, significant within-group treatment effects occurred from baseline for both PRIDE and control sites: adjusted A1c (- 0.76 [95% CI, - 1.08 to - 0.44]; P < .001 vs - 0.54 [95% CI, - 0.86 to - 0.21]; P = .001), odds of poor eating (0.53 [95% CI, 0.33-0.83]; P = .01 vs 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.68]; P < .001), treatment satisfaction (3.93 [95% CI, 2.48-6.21]; P < .001 vs 3.04 [95% CI, 1.93-4.77]; P < .001), and self-efficacy (2.97 [95% CI, 1.89-4.67]; P < .001 vs 1.81 [95% CI, 1.1-2.84]; P = .01). No significant difference was observed between study arms in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions improved the participant's A1c and behavioral outcomes. PRIDE was not more effective than standard education. Further research may elucidate the added value of a focused health communication program in this setting.
BACKGROUND: Effective type 2 diabetes care remains a challenge for patients including those receiving primary care in safety net settings. OBJECTIVE: The Partnership to Improve Diabetes Education (PRIDE) trial team and leaders from a regional department of health evaluated approaches to improve care for vulnerable patients. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: Adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes seeking care across 10 unblinded, randomly assigned safety net clinics in Middle TN. INTERVENTIONS: A literacy-sensitive, provider-focused, health communication intervention (PRIDE; 5 clinics) vs. standard diabetes education (5 clinics). MAIN MEASURES: Participant-level primary outcome was glycemic control [A1c] at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included select health behaviors and psychosocial aspects of care at 12 and 24 months. Adjusted mixed effects regression models were used to examine the comparative effectiveness of each approach to care. KEY RESULTS: Of 410 patients enrolled, 364 (89%) were included in analyses. Median age was 51 years; Black and Hispanic patients represented 18% and 25%; 96% were uninsured, and 82% had low annual income level (< $20,000); adequate health literacy was seen in 83%, but numeracy deficits were common. At 12 months, significant within-group treatment effects occurred from baseline for both PRIDE and control sites: adjusted A1c (- 0.76 [95% CI, - 1.08 to - 0.44]; P < .001 vs - 0.54 [95% CI, - 0.86 to - 0.21]; P = .001), odds of poor eating (0.53 [95% CI, 0.33-0.83]; P = .01 vs 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.68]; P < .001), treatment satisfaction (3.93 [95% CI, 2.48-6.21]; P < .001 vs 3.04 [95% CI, 1.93-4.77]; P < .001), and self-efficacy (2.97 [95% CI, 1.89-4.67]; P < .001 vs 1.81 [95% CI, 1.1-2.84]; P = .01). No significant difference was observed between study arms in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions improved the participant's A1c and behavioral outcomes. PRIDE was not more effective than standard education. Further research may elucidate the added value of a focused health communication program in this setting.
Entities:
Keywords:
diabetes care; disparities; health communication; public health; vulnerable populations
Authors: Donna M Daniel; Jan Norman; Connie Davis; Helan Lee; Michael F Hindmarsh; David K McCulloch; Edward H Wagner; Jonathan R Sugarman Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Saf Date: 2004-02
Authors: Anita B Varkey; Linda Baier Manwell; Eric S Williams; Said A Ibrahim; Roger L Brown; James A Bobula; Barbara A Horner-Ibler; Mark D Schwartz; Thomas R Konrad; Jacqueline C Wiltshire; Mark Linzer Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-02-09
Authors: Russell L Rothman; Ryan Housam; Hilary Weiss; Dianne Davis; Rebecca Gregory; Tebeb Gebretsadik; Ayumi Shintani; Tom A Elasy Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Richard O White; Chandra Y Osborn; Tebeb Gebretsadik; Sunil Kripalani; Russell L Rothman Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Barbara Stetson; David Schlundt; Chelsea Rothschild; Jennifer E Floyd; Whitney Rogers; Sri Prakash Mokshagundam Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Kerri Cavanaugh; Mary Margaret Huizinga; Kenneth A Wallston; Tebeb Gebretsadik; Ayumi Shintani; Dianne Davis; Rebecca Pratt Gregory; Lynn Fuchs; Robb Malone; Andrea Cherrington; Michael Pignone; Darren A DeWalt; Tom A Elasy; Russell L Rothman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Carrie S Standage-Beier; Shelby G Ziller; Bahar Bakhshi; Oscar D Parra; Lawrence J Mandarino; Lindsay N Kohler; Dawn K Coletta Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-01 Impact factor: 4.614