Effectiveness of an intervention to improve diabetes self-management on clinical outcomes in patients with low educational level

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Antonio Olry de Labry Lima^a ; ^b ; ^c ; Clara Bermú ; dez Tamayo^a ; ^b ; ^c ; ^{clara.bermudez.easp@juntadeandalucia.es} ; Guadalupe Pastor Moreno^a ; Julia Bolí ; var Muñ ; oz^a ; ^b ; ^c ; Isabel Ruiz Pé ; rez^a ; ^b ; ^c ; Mira Johri^d ; Fermí ; n Quesada Jimé ; nez^e ; Pilar Cruz Vela^e ; Ana M. de los Rí ; os &Aacute ; lvarez^e ; Miguel &Aacute ; ngel Prados Quel^e ; Enrique Moratalla Ló ; pez^e ; Susana Domí ; nguez Martí ; n^e ; José ; André ; s Lopez de Hierro^e ; Ignacio Ricci Cabello^c ; ^f
• 关键词：Diabetes mellitus type 2 ; Primary health care ; Health inequalities ; Self care ; Randomised controlled trial
• 刊名：Gaceta Sanitaria
• 出版年：2017
• 出版时间：January-February 2017
• 年：2017
• 卷：31
• 期：1
• 页码：40-47
• 全文大小：727 K
• 卷排序：31

文摘

To determine whether an intervention based on patient-practitioner communication is more effective than usual care in improving diabetes self-management in patients with type 2 diabetes with low educational level.Methods12-month, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Nine physicians and 184 patients registered at two practices in a deprived area of Granada (Andalusia, Spain) participated in the study. Adult patients with type 2 diabetes, low educational level and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) > 7% (53.01 mmol/mol) were eligible. The physicians in the intervention group received training on communication skills and the use of a tool for monitoring glycaemic control and providing feedback to patients. The control group continued standard care. The primary outcome was difference in HbA1c after 12 months. Dyslipidaemia, blood pressure, body mass index and waist circumference were also assessed as secondary outcomes. Two-level (patient and provider) regression analyses controlling for sex, social support and comorbidity were conducted.ResultsThe HbA1c levels at 12 months decreased in both groups. Multilevel analysis showed a greater improvement in the intervention group (between-group HbA1c difference= 0.16; p = 0.049). No statistically significant differences between groups were observed for dyslipidaemia, blood pressure, body mass index and waist circumference.ConclusionsIn this pragmatic study, a simple and inexpensive intervention delivered in primary care showed a modest benefit in glycaemic control compared with usual care, although no effect was observed in the secondary outcomes. Further research is needed to design and assess interventions to promote diabetes self-management in socially vulnerable patients.