Evaluating the Effectiveness of Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments (SMAs) as Implemented in Five Veterans Affairs Health Systems: a Multi-site Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Trial

Michele Heisler, Jennifer Burgess, Jeffrey Cass, John F Chardos, Alexander B Guirguis, Lorrie A Strohecker, Adam S Tremblay, Wen-Chih Wu, Donna M Zulman, Michele Heisler, Jennifer Burgess, Jeffrey Cass, John F Chardos, Alexander B Guirguis, Lorrie A Strohecker, Adam S Tremblay, Wen-Chih Wu, Donna M Zulman

Abstract

Objective: To examine whether diabetes shared medical appointments (SMAs) implemented as part of usual clinical practice in diverse health systems are more effective than usual care in improving and sustaining A1c improvements.

Research design and methods: A multi-site cluster randomized pragmatic trial examining implementation in clinical practice of diabetes SMAs in five Veterans Affairs (VA) health systems was conducted from 2016 to 2020 among 1537 adults with type 2 diabetes and elevated A1cs. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to either: (1) invitation to participate in a series of SMAs totaling 8-9 h; or (2) continuation of usual care. Relative change in A1c (primary outcome) and in systolic blood pressure, insulin starts, statin starts, and anti-hypertensive medication classes (secondary outcomes) were measured as part of usual clinical care at baseline, at 6 months and at 12 months (~7 months after conclusion of the final SMA in four of five sites). We examined outcomes in three samples of SMA participants: all those scheduled for a SMA, those attending at least one SMA, and those attending at least half of SMAs.

Results: Baseline mean A1c was 9.0%. Participants scheduled for an SMA achieved A1c reductions 0.35% points greater than the control group between baseline and 6-months follow up (p = .001). Those who attended at least one SMA achieved reductions 0.42 % points greater (p < .001), and those who attended at least half of scheduled SMAs achieved reductions 0.53 % points greater (p < .001) than the control group. At 12-month follow-up, the three SMA analysis samples achieved reductions from baseline ranging from 0.16 % points (p = 0.12) to 0.29 % points (p = .06) greater than the control group.

Conclusions: Diabetes SMAs as implemented in real-life diverse clinical practices improve glycemic control more than usual care immediately after the SMAs, but relative gains are not maintained. Our findings suggest the need for further study of whether a longer term SMA model or other follow-up strategies would sustain relative clinical improvements associated with this intervention.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02132676.

Keywords: shared medical appointment, peer support, disease management, implementation, diabetes mellitus, pragmatic clinical trial.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The CONSORT diagram.aThis includes “soft refusers” (e.g., those who did not show up to a scheduled SMA and were unable to be rescheduled).bThis includes those whose A1c’s “expired” (≥ 6 months old) before they could be recruited for an SMA.cOf these, 304 were offered the P2P program and, of those, 59 actively participated in the P2P program.dOf these, 451 completed a baseline survey, 376 completed a 6-month survey, and 348 completed a 12-month survey.eCACE (Complier Average Causal Effect) analysis consists of those meeting our pre-specified threshold for effective engagement.

References

    1. Ligthart S, wan Herpt TTW, Leening MJG, et al. Lifetime risk of developing impaired glucose metabolism and eventual progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4(1):44-51.
    1. Davies MJ, D’Alessio DA, Fradkin J, et al. Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) Diabetes Care. 2018;41(12):2669–2701. doi: 10.2337/dci18-0033.
    1. Pillay J, Armstrong MJ, Butalia S, et al. Behavioral Programs for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:848–860. doi: 10.7326/M15-1400.
    1. Bodenheimer T, Handley MA. Goal-setting for behavior change in primary care: an exploration and status report. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(2):174–180. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.06.001.
    1. Kirsh S, Watts S, Schaub K, et al. Training Manual, VA Shared Medical Appointments for Patients with Diabetes: Maximizing Patient & Provider Expertise to Strengthen Care Management. 2008. . Accessed 1 August 2016.
    1. Kirk JK, Devoid HM, Strickland CG. Educational Strategies of Diabetes Group Medical Visits: A Review. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2018;14(3):227–236. doi: 10.2174/1573399813666170203111851.
    1. Taveira TH, Friedmann PD, Cohen LB, Dooley AG, Khatana SA, Pirraglia PA, Wu WC. Pharmacist-led group medical appointment model in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2010;36(1):109–17. doi: 10.1177/0145721709352383.
    1. Trento M, Passera P, Borgo E, et al. 5-year randomized, controlled study of learning, problem solving ability, and quality of life modifications in people with type 2 diabetes managed by group care. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:670–675. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.3.670.
    1. Cohen LB, Taveira TH, Khatana SAM, Dooley AG, Pirraglia PA, Wu WC. Pharmacist-led shared medical appointments for multiple cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2011;37(6):801–812. doi: 10.1177/0145721711423980.
    1. Sadur CN, Moline N, Costa M, et al. Diabetes management in a health maintenance organization: efficacy of care management using cluster visits. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:2011–2017. doi: 10.2337/diacare.22.12.2011.
    1. Trento M, Passera P, Tomalino M, et al. Group visits improve metabolic control in type 2 diabetes: a 2-year follow-up. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:995–1000. doi: 10.2337/diacare.24.6.995.
    1. Edelman D, Fredrickson SK, Melnyk SD, Coffman CJ. Medical clinics versus usual care for patients with both diabetes and hypertension: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:689–696. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00001.
    1. Edelman D, Gierisch JM, McDullfe JR, Oddone E, Williams JW. Shared medical appointments for patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30:99–106. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2978-7.
    1. Housden LM, Wong ST. Using group medical visits with those who have diabetes: examining the evidence. Curr Diab Rep. 2016;16:134. doi: 10.1007/s11892-016-0817-4.
    1. Menon K, Mousa A, de Courten MP, Soldatos G, Egger G, de Courten B. Shared medical appointments may be effective for improving clinical and behavioral outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a narrative review. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2017;8:263. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2017.00263.
    1. Vaughan EM, Johnston CA, Arlinghaus KR, Hyman DJ, Foreyt JP. A Narrative Review of Diabetes Group Visits in Low-Income and Underserved Settings. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2019;15:372. doi: 10.2174/1573399814666181112145910.
    1. Jackson GJ, Edelman D, Olsen MK, et al. Benefits of participation in diabetes group visits after trial completion. JAMA Int Med. 2013;173:590–592. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2803.
    1. Heisler M, Vijan S, Makki F, Piette J. Diabetes Control with reciprocal peer support versus nurse care management: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:507–515. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-8-201010190-00007.
    1. Heisler M, Burgess J, Cass J, et al. The Shared Health Appointments and Reciprocal Enhanced Support (SHARES) study: study protocol for a randomized trial. Trials. 2017;18:239. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1959-7.
    1. Kirsh SR, Aron DC, Johnson KD, et al. A realist review of shared medical appointments: How, for whom, and under what circumstances do they work? BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:113. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2064-z.
    1. Drake C, Kirk JK, Buse JB, et al. Characteristics and Delivery of Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments in North Carolina. N C Med J. 2019;80:261–268.
    1. Kirsh SR, Lawrence RH, Aron DC. Tailoring an intervention to the context and system redesign related to the intervention: A case study of implementing shared medical appointments for diabetes. Implement Sci. 2008;3(1):34. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-3-34.
    1. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change. NY: Guilford; 2012.
    1. Resnicow K, McMaster F. Motivational Interviewing: moving from why to how with autonomy support. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:19. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-19.
    1. Williams GC, Freedman ZR, Deci EL. Supporting autonomy to motivate patients with diabetes for glucose control. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1644–51. doi: 10.2337/diacare.21.10.1644.
    1. Gelman A, Hill J. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge university press; 2006.
    1. Hedeker, D. (2005). Generalized Linear Mixed Models. In Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science (eds B.S. Everitt and D.C. Howell). 10.1002/0470013192.bsa251
    1. Lovric M. (eds) International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2
    1. Vargha A, Delaney HD. A Critique and Improvement of the CL Common Language Effect Size Statistics of McGraw and Wong. J Educ Behav Stat. 2000;25(2):101–132. doi: 10.3102/10769986025002101.
    1. Abadie A, Imbens GW. Matching on the Estimated Propensity Score. Econometrica. 2016;84:781–807. doi: 10.3982/ECTA11293.
    1. Sterne Jonathan AC, White Ian R, Carlin John B, Michael S, Patrick R, Kenward Michael G, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2393.
    1. Carpenter JR, Kenward MG. Multiple Imputation and its Application. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
    1. Haynes W. Benjamini–Hochberg Method. In: Dubitzky W, Wolkenhauer O, Cho KH, Yokota H, editors. Encyclopedia of Systems Biology. New York, NY: Springer; 2013.
    1. UKPDS Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998;352(9131):837–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07019-6.
    1. Kwan BM, Dickinson LM, Glasgow RE, et al. The Invested in Diabetes Study Protocol: a cluster randomized pragmatic trial comparing standardized and patient-driven diabetes shared medical appointments. Trials. 2020;21:65. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3938-7.
    1. Wu WC, Taveira TH, Jeffery S, Jiang L, Tokuda L, Musial J, Cohen LB, Uhrle F. Costs and effectiveness of pharmacist-led group medical visits for type-2 diabetes: A multi-center randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0195898. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195898.
    1. Heisler M, Hofer TP, Schmittdiel JA, Selby JV, Klamerus ML, Bosworth HB, Bermann M, Kerr EA. Improving blood pressure control through a clinical pharmacist outreach program in diabetes patients in two-high performing health systems: The Adherence and Intensification of Medications (AIM) cluster randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Circulation. 2012;125(23):2863–2872. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.089169.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Lowery JC. Evaluation of a large-scale weight management program using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) Implement Sci. 2013;8:51. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-51.
    1. Taveira TH, Wu WC. Interventions to maintain cardiac risk control after discharge from a cardiovascular risk reduction clinic: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;105(3):327–335. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2014.05.013.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel