Search

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of an exercise specialist led lifestyle program for adults with type 2 diabetes in primary care. Methods: Eligible participants from 4 primary care networks in Alberta, Canada were assigned to either a lifestyle program or a control group. The program targeted increased daily walking through individualized daily pedometer step goals for the first 3 months and brisk walking speed, along with substitution of low-relative to high-glycemic index foods over the next 3 months. The outcomes were daily steps, diet, and clinical markers, and were compared using random effects models. Results: 198 participants were enrolled (102 in the intervention and 96 in the control). For all participants, (51% were women), mean age 59.5 (SD 8.3) years, A1c 6.8% (SD 1.1), BMI 33.6 kg/m2 (SD 6.5), systolic BP 125.6 mmHg (SD 16.2), glycemic index 51.7 (4.6), daily steps 5879 (SD 3130). Daily steps increased for the intervention compared with the control at 3-months (1292 [SD 2698] vs. 418 [SD 2458] and 6-months (1481 [SD 2631] vs. 336 [SD 2712]; adjusted P = .002). No significant differences were observed for diet or clinical outcomes. Conclusions: A 6-month lifestyle program delivered in primary care by an exercise specialist can be effective for increasing daily walking among adults with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. This short-term increase in daily steps requires longer follow-up to estimate the potential impact on health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background When depression accompanies diabetes, it complicates treatment, portends worse outcomes and increases health care costs. A collaborative care case-management model, previously tested in an urban managed care organization in the US, achieved significant reduction of depressive symptoms, improved diabetes disease control and patient-reported outcomes, and saved money. While impressive, these findings need to be replicated and extended to other healthcare settings. Our objective is to comprehensively evaluate a collaborative care model for comorbid depression and type 2 diabetes within a Canadian primary care setting. Methods/design We initiated the TeamCare model in four Primary Care Networks in Northern Alberta. The intervention involves a nurse care manager guiding patient-centered care with family physicians and consultant physician specialists to monitor progress and develop tailored care plans. Patients eligible for the intervention will be identified using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 as a screen for depressive symptoms. Care managers will then guide patients through three phases: 1) improving depressive symptoms, 2) improving blood glucose, blood pressure and cholesterol, and 3) improving lifestyle behaviors. We will employ the RE-AIM framework for a comprehensive and mixed-methods approach to our evaluation. Effectiveness will be assessed using a controlled “on-off” trial design, whereby eligible patients would be alternately enrolled in the TeamCare intervention or usual care on a monthly basis. All patients will be assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Our primary analyses will be based on changes in two outcomes: depressive symptoms, and a multivariable, scaled marginal model for the combined outcome of global disease control (i.e., A1c, systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol). Our planned enrolment of 168 patients will provide greater than 80% power to observe clinically important improvements in all measured outcomes. Direct costing of all intervention components and measurement of all health care utilization using linked administrative databases will be used to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to usual care. Discussion Our comprehensive evaluation will generate evidence to reliability, effectiveness and sustainability of this collaborative care model for patients with chronic diseases and depression. Trials registration Clintrials.gov Identifier: NCT01328639

Abstract Background While strong and consistent evidence supports the role of lifestyle modification in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), the best strategies for program implementation to support lifestyle modification within primary care remain to be determined. The objective of the study is to evaluate the implementation of an evidence-based self- management program for patients with T2DM within a newly established primary care network (PCN) environment. Method Using a non-randomized design, participants (total N = 110 per group) will be consecutively allocated in bi-monthly blocks to either a 6-month self-management program lead by an Exercise Specialist or to usual care. Our primary outcome is self-reported physical activity and pedometer steps. Discussion The present study will assess whether a diabetes self-management program lead by an Exercise Specialist provided within a newly emerging model of primary care and linked to available community-based resources, can lead to positive changes in self-management behaviours for adults with T2DM. Ultimately, our work will serve as a platform upon which an emerging model of primary care can incorporate effective and efficient chronic disease management practices that are sustainable through partnerships with local community partners. Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00991380

Background: Primary care reforms should be supported by high-quality evidence across the entire life cycle of research. Front-line healthcare providers play an increasing role in implementation research. We recently evaluated two interventions for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in partnership with four Primary Care Networks (PCNs) in Alberta, Canada. Here, we report healthcare professionals perspectives on participating in primary care implementation research.Methods: Guided by the RE-AIM framework, we collected qualitative data before, during, and after both interventions. We conducted 34 in-person or telephone interviews with 17 individual PCN professionals. We used content analysis to identify emerging codes and concepts.Results: Two major themes emerged from the data. First, healthcare managers were eager to conduct implementation research in a primary care setting. Second, regardless of willingness to conduct research, there were challenges to implementing experimental study designs for both interventions. PCN professionals presumed the interventions were better than usual care, expressed role conflict, and reported administrative burdens related to research participation. Perceptions of patient vulnerability and an obligation to intervene exacerbated these issues.Conclusions: Healthcare professionals with limited practical research experience might not foresee the challenges in implementing experimental study designs in primary care settings to generate high-quality evidence. These issues are intensified when healthcare professionals perceive target patient populations as vulnerable and in need of intervention based on the presenting illness. Possible solutions include further research training, involving healthcare professionals in study design development, and using non-clinical staff to conduct research activities, particularly among acutely unwell patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomized controlled trials are considered the "gold standard" for scientific rigor in the assessment of benefits and harms of interventions in healthcare. They may not always be feasible, however, when evaluating quality improvement interventions in real-world healthcare settings. Non-randomized controlled trials (NCTs) are designed to answer questions of effectiveness of interventions in routine clinical practice to inform a decision or process. The on-off NCT design is a relatively new design where participant allocation is by alternation. In alternation, eligible patients are allocated to the intervention "on" or control "off " groups in time series dependent sequential clusters. Methods: We used two quality improvement studies undertaken in a Canadian primary care setting to illustrate the features of the on-off design. We also explored the perceptions and experiences of healthcare providers tasked with implementing the on-off study design. Results and discussion: The on-off design successfully allocated patients to intervention and control groups. Imbalances between baseline variables were attributed to chance, with no detectable biases. However, healthcare providers' perspectives and experiences with the design in practice reveal some conflict. Specifically, providers described the process of allocating patients to the off group as unethical and immoral, feeling it was in direct conflict with their professional principle of providing care for all. The degree of dissatisfaction seemed exacerbated by: 1) the patient population involved (e.g., patient population viewed as high-risk (e.g., depressed or suicidal)), 2) conducting assessments without taking action (e.g., administering the PHQ-9 and not acting on the results), and 3) the (non-blinded) allocation process. Conclusions: Alternation, as in the on-off design, is a credible form of allocation. The conflict reported by healthcare providers in implementing the design, while not unique to the on-off design, may be alleviated by greater emphasis on the purpose of the research and having research assistants allocate patients and collect data instead of the healthcare providers implementing the trial. In addition, consultation with front-line staff implementing the trials with an on-off design on appropriateness to the setting (e.g., alignment with professional values and the patient population served) may be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]