Search

Background: The percentage of adults achieving hemoglobin A1c goals less than 7% remains a challenge. The study objective was to evaluate effects of a multidisciplinary approach on behavioral outcomes and mean change in A1c in immediate start (intervention) versus 6-month delay (control) groups at 6 months. Methods: The study assessed 111 patients recruited from a safety-net primary care clinic with a pharmacist-led multidisciplinary team and found that the intervention improved mean A1c outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes. A1c values were measured every 3 months, and a self-efficacy scale to measure behaviors was evaluated at baseline and 6 months. Results: After 6 months from baseline, the intervention group showed an A1c decrease of 2.4 compared with the control group’s 1.1 decrease. Mean increase in self-efficacy score in the intervention group at baseline versus after 6 months showed a statistically significant change (P = .01) compared with the control group (P = .26). Results revealed a post hoc association between A1c and PHQ-9 such that patients with higher baseline PHQ-9 scores experienced greater mean decrease in A1c. In the immediate start arm, mean A1c values decreased from 10.6 at baseline to 7.7 at month 12. For the delayed intervention group, mean A1c values decreased from 10.2 at baseline to 9.0 after 6 months. Conclusions: Use of a multidisciplinary clinic team in a safety-net primary care practice improved mean A1c control and behavioral outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes as compared to control group.

ObjectiveTo qualitatively analyse different types of dissemination of information during monthly group calls between researchers, providers and clinical staff used to establish best practices for implementing an asthma shared decision-making (SDM) intervention. Evaluating dissemination of information can provide a better understanding of how best practices are shared, informing implementation approaches to improve the uptake of new evidence and overcome barriers.Setting10 primary care practices in North Carolina.ParticipantsProviders and clinical staff participated in monthly group phone calls with researchers to share best practices during implementation of a SDM intervention for asthma patients.DesignThe research team transcribed and coded statements using content analysis into three different knowledge types: Knowledge Position, Knowledge Form and Knowledge Object. Knowledge Objects were further classified using directed content analysis where the research team interpreted the content objects through a classification process of identifying themes or patterns to describe three different types of dissemination of information: (A) Confirmation of Existing Knowledge, (B) Generation of New Knowledge and (C) Spreading of New Knowledge.ResultsAcross the 8 transcripts, 4 Knowledge Positions, 7 Knowledge Forms and 18 types of Knowledge Objects were identified. From the Knowledge Objects, Confirmation of Existing Knowledge occurred during the training of participating practices. The review also identified Generation of New Knowledge by providers and clinical staff raised in these calls. This Generation of New Knowledge was later documented being used by other practices with the identification of Spreading of New Knowledge.ConclusionThe research team described the types of dissemination of information that occurred between researchers, providers and clinical staff during implementation of an asthma SDM intervention. Both Confirmation of Existing Knowledge and Generation of New Knowledge in response to barriers occurred. These exploratory dissemination of information results provide additional mechanisms for evaluating implementation science.Trial registration numberNCT02047929; Post-results

OBJECTIVE: To compare three dissemination approaches for implementing an asthma shared decision-making (SDM) intervention into primary care practices. METHODS: We randomized thirty practices into three study arms: (1) a facilitator-led approach to implementing SDM; (2) a one-hour lunch-and-learn training on SDM; and (3) a control group with no active intervention. Patient perceptions of SDM were assessed in the active intervention arms using a one-question anonymous survey. Logistic regression models compared the frequency of asthma exacerbations (emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and oral steroid prescriptions) between the three arms. RESULTS: We collected 705 surveys from facilitator-led sites and 523 from lunch-and-learn sites. Patients were more likely to report that they participated equally with the provider in making the treatment decision in the facilitator-led sites (75% vs. 66%, p = 0.001). Comparisons of outcomes for patients in the facilitator-led (n = 1,658) and lunch-and-learn (n = 2,613) arms respectively vs. control (n = 2,273) showed no significant differences for ED visits (Odds Ratio [OR] [95%CI] = 0.77[0.57–1.04]; 0.83[0.66–1.07]), hospitalizations (OR [95%CI] = 1.30[0.59–2.89]; 1.40 [0.68–3.06]), or oral steroids (OR [95%CI] = 0.95[0.79–1.15]; 1.03[0.81–1.06]). CONCLUSION: Facilitator-led dissemination was associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients sharing equally in decision-making with the provider compared to a traditional lunch-and-learn approach. While there was no significant difference in health outcomes between the three arms, the results were most likely confounded by a concurrent statewide asthma initiative and the pragmatic implementation of the intervention. These results offer support for the use of structured approaches such as facilitator-led dissemination of complex interventions into primary care practices.

OBJECTIVE: Poor outcomes and health disparities related to asthma result in part from difficulty disseminating new evidence such as shared decision making (SDM) into clinical practice. As part of a three-arm cluster randomized dissemination study, evaluation of the impact of different dissemination methods was studied. Here we evaluate themes from patient and provider focus groups to assess the impact of a facilitated, traditional dissemination approach, or no intervention, on patient and provider perspectives of asthma care. METHODS: Using semi-structured questions, twenty-four pre- and post-intervention focus groups with patients and providers took place across primary care practices. Discussions were held in all three arms both before and after the time of intervention rollout. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Across all sites patients and providers discussed themes of communication, asthma self-management, barriers, education, and patient awareness. After the intervention, compared to traditional sites, facilitated practices were more likely to discuss themes related to SDM, such as patient-centered communication, patient-provider negotiation on treatment plan, planning, goal-setting, and solutions to barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Emergent themes allowed for further understanding of how the SDM implementation was perceived at the patient and provider level. The facilitated implementation was associated with higher adoption of the SDM intervention. These themes and supporting quotes add to knowledge of best practices associated with implementing an evidence-based SDM intervention for asthma into primary care and will inform researchers, practices, and providers as they work to improve adoption of evidence-based interventions into practice.

Introduction. Engagement of patient and advocacy group stakeholders is increasingly considered essential to meaningful outcomes research. Patient-centred research benefits from partnership formation between patients, clinicians and research team members. Here, we describe the rationale for engaging patients on a research team and a case study of patient engagement on an asthma shared decision-making study. Methods. Here, we describe a case study of patient engagement in outcomes research and examine the variety of roles patients are engaged in and the associated impact on the study. Results. Patients assisted the project at various levels and were integrated into the research team by (i) advising on study development; (ii) assisting with design and usability of study materials, including the toolkit, patient surveys and dissemination strategies; and (iii) advocacy via membership in external disease-specific organizations and participating in outcomes research conferences. Patients were engaged both individually and as members of a patient advisory board. Primary lessons learned were the importance of building a trusting partnership with patients through understanding perspectives, being aware of clearly explaining patients’ roles, research methods and jargon, providing training, listening to patients’ needs and understanding what the partnership means from a patient perspective. Conclusions. For the case study described, patient engagement directly influenced multiple aspects of the study, including study design, implementation, data analysis and dissemination through incorporation of the patients’ and caregivers’ input and concerns.

Advances in technology are likely to provide new approaches to address healthcare disparities for high-risk populations. This study explores the feasibility of a new approach to health disparities research using a multidisciplinary intervention and advanced communication technology to improve patient access to care and chronic disease management. A high-risk cohort of uninsured, poorly-controlled diabetic patients was identified then randomized pre-consent with stratification by geographic region to receive either the intervention or usual care. Prior to enrollment, participants were screened for readiness to make a behavioral change. The primary outcome was the feasibility of protocol implementation, and secondary outcomes included the use of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) services and markers of chronic disease control. The intervention included a standardized needs assessment, individualized care plan, intensive management by a multidisciplinary team, including health coach-facilitated virtual visits, and the use of a cloud-based glucose monitoring system. One-hundred twenty-seven high-risk, potentially eligible participants were randomized. Sixty-one met eligibility criteria after an in-depth review. Due to limited resources and time for the pilot, we only attempted to contact 36 participants. Of these, we successfully reached 20 (32%) by phone and conducted a readiness to change screen. Ten participants screened in as ready to change and were enrolled, while the remaining 10 were not ready to change. Eight enrolled participants completed the final three-month follow-up. Intervention feasibility was demonstrated through successful implementation of 13 out of 14 health coach-facilitated virtual visits, and 100% of participants indicated that they would recommend the intervention to a friend. Protocol feasibility was demonstrated as eight of 10 participants completed the entire study protocol. At the end of the three-month intervention, participants had a median of nine total documented contacts with PCMH providers compared to four in the control group. Three intervention and two control participants had controlled diabetes (hemoglobin A1C