Literature DB >> 33461624

Diabetes management intervention studies: lessons learned from two studies.

Bettina Petersen1, Iris Vesper1, Bernhild Pachwald1, Nicole Dagenbach1, Sina Buck2, Delia Waldenmaier3, Lutz Heinemann4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Several clinical studies investigated improvements of patient outcomes due to diabetes management interventions. However, chronic disease management is intricate with complex multifactorial behavior patterns. Such studies thus have to be well designed in order to allocate all observed effects to the defined intervention and to exclude effects of other confounders as well as possible. This article aims to provide challenges in interpreting diabetes management intervention studies and suggests approaches for optimizing study implementation and for avoiding pitfalls based on current experiences. MAIN BODY: Lessons from the STeP and ProValue studies demonstrated the difficulty in medical device studies that rely on behavioral changes in intervention group patients. To successfully engage patients, priority should be given to health care professionals being engaged, operational support in technical issues being available, and adherence being assessed in detail. Another difficulty is to avoid contamination of the control group with the intervention; therefore, strict allocation concealment should be maintained. However, randomization and blinding are not always possible. A limited effect size due to improvements regarding clinical endpoints in the control group is often caused by the Hawthorne effect. Improvements in the control group can also be caused with increased attention paid to the subjects. In order to reduce improvements in the control group, it is essential to identify the specific reasons and adjust study procedures accordingly. A pilot phase is indispensable for this. Another option is to include a third study arm to control for enhanced standard of care and study effects. Furthermore, retrospective data collection could be a feasible option. Adaptive study designs might reduce the necessity of a separate pilot study and combine the exploratory and confirmatory stages of an investigation in one single study.
CONCLUSION: There are several aspects to consider in medical device studies when using interventions that rely on changes in behavior to achieve an effective implementation and significant study results. Improvements in the control group may reduce effect sizes and limit statistical significance; therefore, alternatives to the traditional randomized controlled trials may be considered.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adaptive study design; Behavior-based; Diabetes; Medical device studies; ProValue; Randomized controlled trials; STeP; Study effect; Study performance

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33461624      PMCID: PMC7812736          DOI: 10.1186/s13063-020-05017-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trials        ISSN: 1745-6215            Impact factor:   2.279


  47 in total

1.  The Importance of the Hawthorne Effect on Psychological Outcomes Unveiled in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Diabetes Technology.

Authors:  Mary B Abraham; Jennifer A Nicholas; Michael Crone; Trang T Ly; Elizabeth A Davis; Timothy W Jones
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-12-25

2.  Can technology improve adherence to long-term therapies?

Authors:  Gérard Reach
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2009-05-01

3.  The value of episodic, intensive blood glucose monitoring in non-insulin treated persons with Type 2 Diabetes: design of the Structured Testing Program (STeP) study, a cluster-randomised, clinical trial [NCT00674986].

Authors:  William Polonsky; Lawrence Fisher; Charles Schikman; Deborah Hinnen; Christopher Parkin; Zhihong Jelsovsky; Linda Amstutz; Matthias Schweitzer; Robin Wagner
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  D M Nathan; S Genuth; J Lachin; P Cleary; O Crofford; M Davis; L Rand; C Siebert
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-09-30       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Pilot feasibility study examining a structured self-management diabetes education programme, DESMOND-ID, targeting HbA1c in adults with intellectual disabilities.

Authors:  L Taggart; M Truesdale; M E Carey; L Martin-Stacey; J Scott; B Bunting; V Coates; M Brown; T Karatzias; R Northway; J M Clarke
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 4.359

Review 6.  Systematic review of control groups in nutrition education intervention research.

Authors:  Carol Byrd-Bredbenner; FanFan Wu; Kim Spaccarotella; Virginia Quick; Jennifer Martin-Biggers; Yingting Zhang
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 6.457

7.  Intensive structured self-monitoring of blood glucose and glycemic control in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes: the PRISMA randomized trial.

Authors:  Emanuele Bosi; Marina Scavini; Antonio Ceriello; Domenico Cucinotta; Antonio Tiengo; Raffaele Marino; Erminio Bonizzoni; Francesco Giorgino
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 19.112

8.  Tablet-Aided BehavioraL intervention EffecT on Self-management skills (TABLETS) for Diabetes.

Authors:  Cheryl P Lynch; Joni S Williams; Kenneth J Ruggiero; Rebecca G Knapp; Leonard E Egede
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Evaluation of a Behavioral Mobile Phone App Intervention for the Self-Management of Type 2 Diabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.

Authors:  Shivani Goyal; Gary Lewis; Catherine Yu; Michael Rotondi; Emily Seto; Joseph A Cafazzo
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2016-08-19

10.  Supported Telemonitoring and Glycemic Control in People with Type 2 Diabetes: The Telescot Diabetes Pragmatic Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Sarah H Wild; Janet Hanley; Stephanie C Lewis; John A McKnight; Lucy B McCloughan; Paul L Padfield; Richard A Parker; Mary Paterson; Hilary Pinnock; Aziz Sheikh; Brian McKinstry
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 11.069

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.