Guided self-determination intervention versus attention control for people with type 2 diabetes in outpatient clinics: a protocol for a randomised clinical trial

Anne Sophie Mathiesen, Vibeke Zoffmann, Tine Bruhn Skytte, Janus C Jakobsen, Christian Gluud, Jane Lindschou, Bodil Rasmussen, Emilie Marqvorsen, Thordis Thomsen, Mette Rothmann, Anne Sophie Mathiesen, Vibeke Zoffmann, Tine Bruhn Skytte, Janus C Jakobsen, Christian Gluud, Jane Lindschou, Bodil Rasmussen, Emilie Marqvorsen, Thordis Thomsen, Mette Rothmann

Abstract

Introduction: In the management of type 2 diabetes, autonomy-supporting interventions may be a prerequisite to achieving more long-term improvement. Preliminary evidence has shown that the guided self-determination (GSD) method might have an effect on haemoglobin A1c and diabetes distress in people with type 1 diabetes. Previous trials were at risk of uncertainty. Thus, the objective is to investigate the benefits and harms of a GSD intervention versus an attention control group intervention in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Methods and analysis: This trial protocol is guided by the The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for International Trials Statement. We describe the protocol for a pragmatic randomised, dual-centre, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial testing a GSD intervention versus an attention control for people with type 2 diabetes in outpatient clinics. The participants (n=224) will be recruited from two diverse regions of Denmark. The experimental stepped-care intervention will consist of three to five GSD sessions lasting up to 1 hour with a trained GSD facilitator. The sessions will be conducted face to face, by video conference or over the telephone. The attention controls will receive three to five sessions lasting up to an hour with a communication-trained healthcare professional provided face to-face, by video conference, or over the telephone. Participants will be included if they have type 2 diabetes,>18 years old, are not pregnant. Participants will be assessed before randomisation, at 5-month, and 12-month follow-up, the latter being the primary. The primary outcome is diabetes distress. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, depressive symptoms and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes are haemoglobin A1c, motivation and serious adverse events. Data will be collected using REDCap and analysed using Stata V.16.

Ethics and dissemination: The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the Helsinki Declaration in its latest form, International Harmonisation of Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the applicable regulatory requirement(s). The trial has been approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (P-2020-864). The Ethics Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark reviewed the trial protocol, but exempted the trial protocol from full review (H-20003638). The results of the trial will be presented at the outpatient clinics treating people with type 2 diabetes, at national and international conferences as well as to associations for people with diabetes and their relatives.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04601311.

Keywords: clinical trials; education & training (see medical education & training); general endocrinology.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The second author (VZ) has developed the GSD method, which may introduce author bias.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overview of sessions. GSD, guided self-determination. HCP, healthcare professional

References

    1. Karuranga S, Fernandes JR, Huang Y, et al. . IDF diabetes atlas, 2017.
    1. Chatterjee S, Khunti K, Davies MJ. Type 2 diabetes. Lancet 2017;389:2239–51. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30058-2
    1. American Diabetes Association . 6. Glycemic targets: standards of medical care in diabetes—2018, 2018.
    1. Gregg EW, Sattar N, Ali MK. The changing face of diabetes complications. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2016;4:537–47. 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30010-9
    1. Gedebjerg A, Almdal TP, Berencsi K, et al. . Prevalence of micro- and macrovascular diabetes complications at time of type 2 diabetes diagnosis and associated clinical characteristics: a cross-sectional baseline study of 6958 patients in the Danish DD2 cohort. J Diabetes Complications 2018;32:34–40. 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2017.09.010
    1. Davies MJ, D'Alessio DA, Fradkin J, et al. . Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American diabetes association (ADA) and the European association for the study of diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia 2018;61:2461–98. 10.1007/s00125-018-4729-5
    1. Rosbach M, Andersen JS. Patient-experienced burden of treatment in patients with multimorbidity - A systematic review of qualitative data. PLoS One 2017;12:e0179916. 10.1371/journal.pone.0179916
    1. Fisher L, Mullan JT, Skaff MM, et al. . Predicting diabetes distress in patients with type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal study. Diabet Med 2009;26:622–7. 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02730.x
    1. Stoop CH, Nefs G, Pop VJ, et al. . Diabetes-specific emotional distress in people with type 2 diabetes: a comparison between primary and secondary care. Diabet Med 2014;31:1252–9. 10.1111/dme.12472
    1. Fisher L, Glasgow RE, Strycker LA. The relationship between diabetes distress and clinical depression with glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2010;33:1034–6. 10.2337/dc09-2175
    1. Sheldon KM, Elliot AJ. Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: the self-concordance model. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999;76:482–97. 10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482
    1. Ntoumanis N, Ng JYY, Prestwich A, et al. . A meta-analysis of self-determination theory-informed intervention studies in the health domain: effects on motivation, health behavior, physical, and psychological health. Health Psychol Rev 2021;15:214–44. 10.1080/17437199.2020.1718529
    1. Gillison FB, Rouse P, Standage M, et al. . A meta-analysis of techniques to promote motivation for health behaviour change from a self-determination theory perspective. Health Psychol Rev 2019;13:110–30. 10.1080/17437199.2018.1534071
    1. Nutbeam DON. Health promotion glossary. Health Promot Int 1986;1:113–27. 10.1093/heapro/1.1.113
    1. Zoffmann V, Harder I, Kirkevold M. A person-centered communication and reflection model: sharing decision-making in chronic care. Qual Health Res 2008;18:670–85. 10.1177/1049732307311008
    1. Zoffmann V, Kirkevold M. Life versus disease in difficult diabetes care: conflicting perspectives disempower patients and professionals in problem solving. Qual Health Res 2005;15:750–65. 10.1177/1049732304273888
    1. Zoffmann V, Kirkevold M. Relationships and their potential for change developed in difficult type 1 diabetes. Qual Health Res 2007;17:625–38. 10.1177/1049732307301230
    1. Zoffmann V, Kirkevold M. Realizing empowerment in difficult diabetes care: a guided self-determination intervention. Qual Health Res 2012;22:103–18. 10.1177/1049732311420735
    1. Zoffmann V, Lauritzen T. Guided self-determination improves life skills with type 1 diabetes and A1C in randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 2006;64:78–86. 10.1016/j.pec.2005.11.017
    1. Zoffmann V, Prip A, Christiansen AW. Dramatic change in a young woman's perception of her diabetes and remarkable reduction in HbA1c after an individual course of guided Self-Determination. BMJ Case Rep 2015;2015. 10.1136/bcr-2015-209906. [Epub ahead of print: 06 Jul 2015].
    1. Zoffmann V, Vistisen D, Due-Christensen M. Flexible guided self-determination intervention for younger adults with poorly controlled Type 1 diabetes, decreased HbA1c and psychosocial distress in women but not in men: a real-life RCT. Diabet Med 2015;32:1239–46. 10.1111/dme.12698
    1. Mathiesen AS, Egerod I, Jensen T, et al. . Psychosocial interventions for reducing diabetes distress in vulnerable people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2019;12:19–33. 10.2147/DMSO.S179301
    1. Husted GR, Thorsteinsson B, Esbensen BA, et al. . Effect of guided self-determination youth intervention integrated into outpatient visits versus treatment as usual on glycemic control and life skills: a randomized clinical trial in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Trials 2014;15:321. 10.1186/1745-6215-15-321
    1. Mohn J, Graue M, Assmus J, et al. . The effect of guided self-determination on self-management in persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus and HbA1c ≥64 mmol/mol: a group-based randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2017;7:e013295. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013295
    1. Mathiesen AS, Rothmann MJ, Zoffmann V, et al. . Self-determination theory interventions versus usual care in people with diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Syst Rev 2021;10:12. 10.1186/s13643-020-01566-5
    1. Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, et al. . Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:429–38. 10.7326/0003-4819-157-6-201209180-00537
    1. LaFave SE, Granbom M, Cudjoe TKM, et al. . Attention control group activities and perceived benefit in a trial of a behavioral intervention for older adults. Res Nurs Health 2019;42:476–82. 10.1002/nur.21992
    1. McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, et al. . The Hawthorne effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:30. 10.1186/1471-2288-7-30
    1. Polonsky WH, Anderson BJ, Lohrer PA, et al. . Assessment of diabetes-related distress. Diabetes Care 1995;18:754–60. 10.2337/diacare.18.6.754
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361–70. 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
    1. Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, et al. . The validity of the hospital anxiety and depression scale. An updated literature review. J Psychosom Res 2002;52:69–77. 10.1016/s0022-3999(01)00296-3
    1. Ahroni JH, Boyko EJ. Responsiveness of the SF-36 among veterans with diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Complications 2000;14:31–9. 10.1016/S1056-8727(00)00066-0
    1. Bjorner JB, Wallenstein GV, Martin MC, et al. . Interpreting score differences in the SF-36 vitality scale: using clinical conditions and functional outcomes to define the minimally important difference. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23:731–9. 10.1185/030079907X178757
    1. Rozental A, Kottorp A, Boettcher J, et al. . Negative effects of psychological treatments: an exploratory factor analysis of the negative effects questionnaire for monitoring and reporting adverse and unwanted events. PLoS One 2016;11:e0157503. 10.1371/journal.pone.0157503
    1. Rozental A, Kottorp A, Forsström D, et al. . The negative effects questionnaire: psychometric properties of an instrument for assessing negative effects in psychological treatments. Behav Cogn Psychother 2019;47:559–72. 10.1017/S1352465819000018
    1. International Conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use, ICH harmonised guideline: integrated addemdum to ICH E6 (R1): guideline for good clinical practice (ICH-GCP) 2015.
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. . Spirit 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:200–7. 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583
    1. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, et al. . Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:295–309. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008
    1. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, et al. . Methods and processes of the CONSORT group: example of an extension for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:W-60–6. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008-w1
    1. Mathiesen AS. Vulnerable people with type 2 diabetes: implications and feasibility of a guided self-determination intervention for reducing diabetes distress. Department of Public health, Faculty of health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2019.
    1. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Earles J, et al. . Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: development of the diabetes distress scale. Diabetes Care 2005;28:626–31. 10.2337/diacare.28.3.626
    1. Razavi D, Delvaux N, Farvacques C, et al. . Screening for adjustment disorders and major depressive disorders in cancer in-patients. Br J Psychiatry 1990;156:79–83. 10.1192/bjp.156.1.79
    1. Spinhoven P, Ormel J, Sloekers PP, et al. . A validation study of the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. Psychol Med 1997;27:363–70. 10.1017/S0033291796004382
    1. Ryan RMD, Edward L. Self-determination theory - Basic psychological needs in Motivation, Development and Wellness. The Guilford Press, 2017.
    1. Järvinen TLN, Sihvonen R, Bhandari M, et al. . Blinded interpretation of study results can feasibly and effectively diminish interpretation bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:769–72. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.011
    1. Gøtzsche PC. Blinding during data analysis and writing of manuscripts. Control Clin Trials 1996;17:285–90. 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00263-4
    1. Sperl-Hillen J, Beaton S, Fernandes O, et al. . Are benefits from diabetes self-management education sustained? Am J Manag Care 2013;19:104–12.
    1. Puhan MA, Frey M, Büchi S, et al. . The minimal important difference of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008;6:46. 10.1186/1477-7525-6-46
    1. Jakobsen JC, Gluud C, Winkel P, et al. . The thresholds for statistical and clinical significance - a five-step procedure for evaluation of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:34. 10.1186/1471-2288-14-34
    1. Jakobsen JC, Gluud C, Wetterslev J, et al. . When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials - a practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017;17:162. 10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1
    1. World Medical Association . World Medical association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013;310:2191–4. 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
    1. Skoog M SJ, Gluud C, Scheinin M. Transparency and registration in clinical research in the Nordic countries (report), in Nordic trial alliance. Oslo, Norway: NordForsk, 2015: 108.
    1. Taichman DB, Sahni P, Pinborg A, et al. . Data Sharing Statements for Clinical Trials - A Requirement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 2017;376:2277–9. 10.1056/NEJMe1705439
    1. Olesen ML, Duun-Henriksen A-K, Hansson H, et al. . A person-centered intervention targeting the psychosocial needs of gynecological cancer survivors: a randomized clinical trial. J Cancer Surviv 2016;10:832–41. 10.1007/s11764-016-0528-5

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa