Effectiveness of IT-based diabetes management interventions: a review of the literature

Beth M Costa, Kristine J Fitzgerald, Kay M Jones, Trisha Dunning Am, Beth M Costa, Kristine J Fitzgerald, Kay M Jones, Trisha Dunning Am

Abstract

Background: Information technology (IT) is increasingly being used in general practice to manage health care including type 2 diabetes. However, there is conflicting evidence about whether IT improves diabetes outcomes. This review of the literature about IT-based diabetes management interventions explores whether methodological issues such as sample characteristics, outcome measures, and mechanisms causing change in the outcome measures could explain some of the inconsistent findings evident in IT-based diabetes management studies.

Methods: Databases were searched using terms related to IT and diabetes management. Articles eligible for review evaluated an IT-based diabetes management intervention in general practice and were published between 1999 and 2009 inclusive in English. Studies that did not include outcome measures were excluded.

Results: Four hundred and twenty-five articles were identified, sixteen met the inclusion criteria: eleven GP focussed and five patient focused interventions were evaluated. Nine were RCTs, five non-randomised control trials, and two single-sample before and after designs. Important sample characteristics such as diabetes type, familiarity with IT, and baseline diabetes knowledge were not addressed in any of the studies reviewed. All studies used HbA1c as a primary outcome measure, and nine reported a significant improvement in mean HbA1c over the study period; only two studies reported the HbA1c assay method. Five studies measured diabetes medications and two measured psychological outcomes. Patient lifestyle variables were not included in any of the studies reviewed. IT was the intervention method considered to effect changes in the outcome measures. Only two studies mentioned alternative possible causal mechanisms.

Conclusion: Several limitations could affect the outcomes of IT-based diabetes management interventions to an unknown degree. These limitations make it difficult to attribute changes solely to such interventions.

References

    1. Piette JD. Interactive behaviour change technology to support diabetes self-management: where do we stand? Diabetes Care. 2007;30(2425-32)
    1. Joshy G, Simmons D. Diabetes information systems: a rapidly emerging support for diabetes surveillance and care. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2006;8:587–597. doi: 10.1089/dia.2006.8.587.
    1. Nobel J. Bridging the knowledge-action gap in diabetes: information technologies, physician incentives and consumer incentives converge. Chronic Illn. 2005;2:59–69.
    1. Department of Human Services. Diabetes prevention and management: a strategic framework for Victoria 2007-2010. Melbourne: Victorian DOH; 2007.
    1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Diabetes: Australian facts 2008 Diabetes series no. 8 Cat. No. CVD 40 edition. Canberra: AIHW; 2008.
    1. Queensland Health. The health of Queenslanders 2008: prevention of chronic disease. Second report of the Chief Health officer Queensland. Brisbane: QLD Health; 2008.
    1. Dunning T. Care of people with diabetes: a manual of nursing practice. 2. Carlton South: Blackwell Publishing; 2003.
    1. Diabetes Australia and Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Diabetes management in general practice: guidelines for type 2 diabetes. 14. Norah Head, NSW: Diabetes Australia Publication; 2008.
    1. Zwar NA, Hermiz O, Comino EJ, Shortus T, Burns J, Harris M. Do multidisciplinary care plans result in better care for patients with type 2 diabetes? Aust Fam Physician. 2007;36:85–9.
    1. Harris M. Challenges in diabetes management. Aust Fam Physician. 2008;37(716-20)
    1. Bolger-Harris H, Schatner P, Saunders M. Using computer based templates for chronic disease management. Aust Fam Physician. 2008;37:285–288.
    1. Adaji A, Schatner P, Jones K. The use of information technology to enhance diabetes management in primary care: a literature review. Inform Prim Care. 2008;16:229–237.
    1. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to review the evidence: systematic identification and review of the scientific literature. Canberra: NHMRC; 2000.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleljnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700.
    1. Smith SA, Shah ND, Bryant SC, Christianson TJH, Bjornsen SS, Giesler PD. Chronic care model and shared care in diabetes: randomized trial of an electronic decision support system. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:747–757. doi: 10.4065/83.7.747.
    1. Eccles MP, Whitt PM, Speed C, Steen IN, Vanoli A, Hawthorne GC. A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of a Diabetes Recall and Management system: the DREAM trial. Implementation Science. 2007;2(6):12.
    1. Peterson KA, Radosevic DM, O'Connor PJ, Nyman JA, Prineas JR, Smith SA. Improving diabetes care in practice: Findings from the TRANSLATE trial. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(2238-2243)
    1. Shea S, Weinstock RS, Starren J, Teresi J, Palmas W, Field L. A randomized trial comparing telemedicine case management with usual care in older, ethnically diverse, medically underserved patients with diabetes mellitus. J Am Inform Assoc. 2006;13:40–51. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1917.
    1. Trief PM, Teresi JA, Eimicke JP, Shea S, Weinstock RS. Improvement in diabetes self-efficacy and glycaemic control using telemedicine in a sample of older, ethnically diverse individuals who have diabetes: the IDEATel project. Age Ageing. 2009;38(2):219–225. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afn299.
    1. Glasgow RE, Nitting PA, King DK, Nelson CC, Cutter G, Gaglio B. Randomized effectiveness trial of a computer-assisted intervention to improve diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:33–39. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.1.33.
    1. O'Connor PJ, Crain AL, Rush WA, Sperl-Hillen JM, Gutenkauf JJ, Duncan JE. Impact of an electronic medical record on diabetes quality of care. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3:300–306. doi: 10.1370/afm.327.
    1. McMahon GT, Hu TM, Gomes HE, Levine BA, Hohne SH, Conlin PR. Web-based care management in patients with poorly controlled diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:1624–1629. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.7.1624.
    1. Bond GE, Burr R, Wolf FM, Price M, McCurry SM, Teri L. The effects of a web-based intervention on the physical outcomes associated with diabetes among adults ag 60 and older: a randomized trial. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2007;9:52–59. doi: 10.1089/dia.2006.0057.
    1. Montori VM, Dinneen SF, Gorman CA, Zimmerman BR, Rizza RA, Bjornsen SS. The impact of planned care and a diabetes electronic management system on community-based diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:1952–1957. doi: 10.2337/diacare.25.11.1952.
    1. Grant RW, Cagliero E, Sullivan CM, Dubey AK, Estey GA, Weil EM. A controlled trial of population management: Diabetes Mellitus: putting evidence into practice (DM-PEP) Diabetes Care. 2004;27:2299–2304. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.10.2299.
    1. Jones D, Curry W. Impact of a PDA-based diabetes electronic management system in a primary care office. Am J Med Qual. 2006;21(401-7)
    1. Pollard C, Bailey KA, Petitte T, Baus A, Swim M, Hendryx M. Electronic patient regisries improve diabetes care and clinical outcomes in rural community health centers. J Rural Health. 2009;25:77–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2009.00202.x.
    1. Smith KE, Levine BA, Clement SC, Hu M, Alaoui A, Mun SK. Impact of MyCareTeam for poorly controlled diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2004;6:828–835. doi: 10.1089/dia.2004.6.828.
    1. Chima CS, Farmer-Dziak N, Cardwell P, Snow S. Use of technology to track program outcomes in a diabetes self-management program. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:1933–1938. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2005.07.013.
    1. Kwon H, Cho J, Kim H, Lee J, Song B, Oh J. Development of web-based diabetic patient management system using short message service (SMS) Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2004;66S:S133–137. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2003.10.028.
    1. Shortridge-Baggett LM, Bijl JJ Van Der. International collaborative research on management of self-efficacy in diabetes mellitus. J NY State Nurses Assoc. 1996;27:9–14.
    1. Wang D, Bakhai A, (Eds) Clinical trials: a practical guide to design, analysis, and reporting. Chicago: Remedica. 2006.
    1. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE) Psychol Aging. 2006;21:333–352. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333.
    1. Department of Planning and Community Development. Ageing in Victoria discussion paper. DPCD; Australia; 2008.
    1. Tacken M, Marcellini F, Mollenkopf H, Ruoppila I, Szeman Z. Use and acceptance of new technology by older people: findings of the international MOBILATE survey "Enhancing Mobility in Later Life". Gerotechnology. 2005;3:126–137. doi: 10.4017/gt.2005.03.03.002.00.
    1. Ludwick DA, Doucette J. Primary care physicians' experience with electronic medical records: barriers to implementation in a fee-for-service environment. Int J Telemedicine and Applications. 2009. Article ID 853524, 853529.
    1. Terry AL, Thorpe CF, Giles G, Brown JB, Harris SB, Reid GJ, Thind A, Stewart M. Implementing electronic health records: key factors in primary care. Canadian Family Physician. 2008;54:730–736.
    1. Rose M, Fliege H, Hildebrandt M, Schrop T, Klapp BF. The network of psychological variables in patients with diabetes and their importance for quality of life and metabolic control. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:35–42. doi: 10.2337/diacare.25.1.35.
    1. Williams GC, McGregor HA, King DK, Nelson CC, Glasgow RE. Variation in perceived competence, glycemic control, and patient satisfaction: relationship to autonomy support from physicians. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57:39–45. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2004.04.001.
    1. Oldroyd J, Proudfoot J, Infante FA, Davies GP, Bubner T, Holton C. Providing healthcare for people with chronic illness: the views of Australian GPs. Med J Aust. 2003;179:30–33.
    1. Nichols AL, Maner JK. The good-subject: investigating participant demand characteristics. J Gen Psychol. 2008;135:151–165. doi: 10.3200/GENP.135.2.151-166.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe