Search

Background: Mental health problems are common among people with diabetes. However, evidence-based strategies for the prevention and early intervention of emotional problems in people with diabetes are lacking. Our aim is to assess the real-world effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation of a Low-Intensity mental health Support via a Telehealth Enabled Network (LISTEN), facilitated by diabetes health professionals (HPs). Methods: A hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation trial, including a two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial, alongside mixed methods process evaluation. Recruited primarily via the National Diabetes Services Scheme, Australian adults with diabetes (N = 454) will be eligible if they are experiencing elevated diabetes distress. Participants are randomised (1:1 ratio) to LISTEN—a brief, low-intensity mental health support program based on a problem-solving therapy framework and delivered via telehealth (intervention) or usual care (web-based resources about diabetes and emotional health). Data are collected via online assessments at baseline (T0), 8 weeks (T1) and 6 months (T2, primary endpoint) follow-up. The primary outcome is between-group differences in diabetes distress at T2. Secondary outcomes include the immediate (T1) and longer-term (T2) effect of the intervention on psychological distress, general emotional well-being, and coping self-efficacy. A within-trial economic evaluation will be conducted. Implementation outcomes will be assessed using mixed methods, according to the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Data collection will include qualitative interviews and field notes. Discussion: It is anticipated that LISTEN will reduce diabetes distress among adults with diabetes. The pragmatic trial results will determine whether LISTEN is effective, cost-effective, and should be implemented at scale. Qualitative findings will be used to refine the intervention and implement

Aims: To test ‘Is Insulin Right for Me?’, a theory-informed, self-directed, web-based intervention designed to reduce psychological barriers to insulin therapy among adults with type 2 diabetes. Further, to examine resource engagement and associations between minimum engagement and outcomes. Methods: Double-blind, two-arm randomised controlled trial (1:1), comparing the intervention with freely available online information (control). Eligible participants were Australian adults with type 2 diabetes, taking oral diabetes medications, recruited primarily via national diabetes registry. Exclusion criteria: prior use of injectable medicines; being ‘very willing’ to commence insulin. Data collections were completed online at baseline, 2-week and 6-month follow-up. Primary outcome: negative insulin treatment appraisal scale (ITAS) scores; secondary outcomes: positive ITAS scores and hypothetical willingness to start insulin. Analyses: intention-to-treat (ITT); per-protocol (PP) examination of outcomes by engagement. Trial registration: ACTRN12621000191897. Results: No significant ITT between-arm (intervention: n = 233; control: n = 243) differences were observed in primary (2 weeks: Mdiff [95% CI]: −1.0 [−2.9 to 0.9]; 6 months: −0.01 [−1.9 to 1.9]), or secondary outcomes at either follow-up. There was evidence of lower Negative ITAS scores at 2-week, but not 6-month, follow-up among those with minimum intervention engagement (achieved by 44%) compared to no engagement (−2.7 [−5.1 to −0.3]). Conclusions: Compared to existing information, ‘Is insulin right for me?’ did not improve outcomes at either timepoint. Small intervention engagement effects suggest it has potential. Further research is warranted to examine whether effectiveness would be greater in a clinical setting, following timely referral among those for whom insulin is clinically indicated.

Background: This study examined the feasibility and acceptability of the low-intensity mental health support via telehealth-enabled network (LISTEN) intervention, for adults with diabetes, facilitated by diabetes health professionals (HPs). Methods: LISTEN training. Three HPs participated in three half-day online workshops and applied their learnings during training cases (maximum four). Competency was assessed with a validated tool and achieved ‘satisfactory’ ratings for three consecutive sessions. LISTEN pilot. A single-group, pre-post study (up to four LISTEN sessions) with online assessments at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up. Eligible participants were adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, with diabetes distress, but excluded if they had moderate/severe depressive and/or anxiety symptoms. Feasibility was assessed via recruitment and session completion rates. Acceptability was assessed with post-intervention self-report data. Changes in diabetes distress and general emotional well-being from baseline (T1) were explored at post-intervention (T2) and at 4-week follow-up (T3). Results: Two HPs achieved competency (median training case sessions required: 7) and progressed to deliver LISTEN in the pilot study. In the pilot, N = 16 adults (Med [IQR] age: 60 [37–73] years; 13 women) with diabetes participated (median sessions per participant: 2). Twelve participants (75%) completed the post-intervention assessment (T2): 92% endorsed the number of sessions offered as ‘just right’, 75% felt comfortable talking with the HP, and 67% were satisfied with LISTEN. Perceived limitations were the structured format and narrow scope of problems addressed. Diabetes distress scores were lower post-intervention. Conclusions: This pilot demonstrates the feasibility of training HPs to deliver LISTEN, and the acceptability and potential benefits of LISTEN for adults with diabetes. The findings highlight adaptations that may enhance the delivery of, and satisfaction

Aims Acceptable and accessible interventions are needed to address ‘psychological insulin resistance’, which is a common barrier to insulin uptake among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Our aim was to test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) study design and acceptability of a theoretically grounded, psycho-educational, web-based resource to reduce negative insulin appraisals among adults with T2D. Methods A double-blinded, parallel group, two-arm pilot RCT (1:1), comparing intervention with active control (existing online information about insulin). Eligible participants were Australian adults with T2D, taking oral diabetes medications. Exclusion criteria: prior use of injectable medicines; being ‘very willing’ to commence insulin. Primary outcomes: study feasibility (recruitment ease, protocol fulfilment, attrition, data completeness); secondary outcomes: intervention acceptability (intervention engagement, user feedback) and likely efficacy (negative Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale [ITAS] scores at follow-up). Online surveys completed at baseline and 2 weeks. Results During 4-week recruitment, 76 people expressed interest: 51 eligible and 35 enrolled (intervention = 17, control = 18; median[interquartile range] age = 62[53, 69] years; 17 women). Protocol fulfilment achieved by 26 (74%) participants (n = 13 per arm), with low participant attrition (n = 6, 17%). Intervention acceptability was high (>80% endorsement, except format preference = 60%). ITAS negative scores differed between-groups at follow-up (M diff = −6.5, 95% confidence interval: −10.7 to −2.4), favouring the intervention. Conclusions This novel web-based resource (“Is insulin right for me?”) is acceptable and associated with a likely reduction in negative insulin appraisals, relative to existing resources. This pilot shows the study design is feasible and supports conduct of a fully powered RCT.

Introduction Psychological barriers to insulin therapy are associated with the delay of clinically indicated treatment intensification for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), yet few evidence-based interventions exist to address these barriers. We describe the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the efficacy of a novel, theoretically grounded, psychoeducational, web-based resource designed to reduce psychological barriers to insulin among adults with non-insulin treated T2D: ‘Is insulin right for me?’. Methods and analysis Double-blind, parallel group RCT. A target sample of N=392 participants (n=196/arm) will be randomised (1:1) to ‘Is insulin right for me?’ (intervention) or widely available online resources (control). Eligible participants include adults (18–75 years), residing in Australia, currently taking oral hypoglycaemic agents to manage T2D. They will be primarily recruited via invitations and reminders from the national diabetes registry (from a purposefully selected sample of N≥12 000). Exclusion criteria: experience of self-administered injectable; previously enrolled in pilot RCT; ‘very willing’ to start insulin as baseline. Outcomes will be assessed via online survey at 2 weeks and 6 months. Primary outcome between-group: difference in mean negative Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scores (ITAS negative) at 2-week and 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes: between-group differences in mean positive insulin appraisals (ITAS positive) and percentage difference in intention to commence insulin at follow-up time points. All data analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Ethics and dissemination Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (2020–073). Dissemination via peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a plain-language summary. Trial registration number ACTRN12621000191897; Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

Aims This qualitative study aims to explore beliefs, attitudes and experiences of injectable glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) use and discontinuation, as well as attitudes to further injectable treatment intensification, among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods Nineteen in-depth semi-structured interviews lasting (mean +/- standard deviation) 45 +/- 18 min were conducted, face-to-face (n = 14) or via telephone (n = 5). Transcripts were analysed using inductive template analyses. Eligible participants were English-speaking adults with T2D who had recently initiated (

Objective To develop a theory and evidence-based web intervention to reduce psychological barriers towards insulin therapy among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods Salient psychological barriers towards insulin were identified from the literature and classified using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Relevant TDF domains were mapped to evidence-based behaviour change techniques (BCTs), which informed the content for each barrier. Acceptability was explored using cognitive debriefing interviews (n=6 adults with T2D). Results 'Is Insulin Right for Me' addresses eight barriers, phrased as common questions: Does insulin mean my diabetes is more serious? Do insulin injections cause complications? Is it my fault I need to inject insulin? Will I gain weight? Will injecting hurt? What about hypos? Will injecting insulin be a burden? What will others think of me? BCTs, including persuasive communication and modelling/demonstration, were delivered using appropriate methods (eg, demonstration of the injection process). Participant suggestions for improvement included clear and direct messages, normalising insulin and avoiding confronting images. Conclusions 'Is Insulin Right for Me' is the first theory and evidence-based, web intervention designed to reduce psychological barriers towards insulin therapy for adults with T2D. Evaluation is needed to determine its impact on negative appraisals and receptiveness towards insulin.

PURPOSE: To investigate the mediating role of coping self-efficacy (CSE) between two types of illness cognitions (i.e., acceptance and helplessness) and depressive symptoms in persons with low vision. METHODS: This was a single-group, cross-sectional study. Patients with visual acuity < 6/12 in the better eye and at least minimal depressive symptoms (≥5 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]) were recruited from vision rehabilitation services and participated in telephone-administered structured interviews at one time point. Measures were the PHQ-9, CSE Scale, and Illness Cognition Questionnaire. Structural equation modeling (SEM) devised the causal flow of illness cognitions and their observed indirect effects on depressive symptoms via the CSE mediators: problem focused, emotion focused, and social support. RESULTS: The study comprised 163 patients (mean age 62 years; 61% female), most with age-related macular degeneration (26%) and moderate vision impairment (44%, <6/18-6/60). Structural equation modeling indices indicated a perfect fit (χ2 < 0.001, P = 1.00), accounting for 55% of the variance in depressive symptoms. Lower levels of acceptance and higher levels of helplessness illness cognitions were associated with lower self-efficacy in problem-focused coping (β = 0.38, P < 0.001, β = -0.28, P < 0.01, respectively), which in turn was associated with greater depressive symptom severity (β = -0.54, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of acceptance and greater helplessness relating to low vision led to a lack of perceived capability to engage in problem-focused coping, which in turn promoted depressive symptoms. Third-wave cognitive-behavioral treatments that focus on acceptance may be efficacious in this population.