Informed shared decision-making programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial

被引:24
作者
Buhse, Susanne [1 ]
Kuniss, Nadine [2 ,3 ]
Liethmann, Kathrin [1 ,4 ]
Mueller, Ulrich Alfons [2 ,3 ]
Lehmann, Thomas [5 ]
Muehlhauser, Ingrid [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hamburg, Hlth Sci & Educ, Hamburg, Germany
[2] Jena Univ Hosp, Dept Internal Med Endocrinol & Metab Dis 3, Jena, Germany
[3] Diabet Ctr Thuringia, Jena, Germany
[4] Univ Med Ctr Schleswig Holstein, Inst Med Psychol & Sociol, Kiel, Germany
[5] Jena Univ Hosp, Ctr Clin Studies, Jena, Germany
关键词
DISEASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS; STATUTORY HEALTH-INSURANCE; TEACHING PROGRAM; STRUCTURED TREATMENT; GERMANY; AID; MELLITUS;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024004
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To translate an informed shared decision-making programme (ISDM-P) for patients with type 2 diabetes from a specialised diabetes centre to the primary care setting. Design Patient-blinded, two-arm multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial of 6 months follow-up; concealed randomisation of practices after patient recruitment and acquisition of baseline data. Setting 22 general practices providing care according to the German Disease Management Programme (DMP) for type 2 diabetes. Participants 279 of 363 eligible patients without myocardial infarction or stroke. Interventions The ISDM-P comprises a patient decision aid, a corresponding group teaching session provided by medical assistants and a structured patient-physician encounter. Control group received standard DMP care. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary endpoint was patient adherence to antihypertensive or statin drug therapy by comparing prescriptions and patient-reported uptake after 6 months. Secondary endpoints included informed choice, risk knowledge (score 0-11 from 11 questions) and prioritised treatment goals of patients and doctors. Results ISDM-P: 11 practices with 151 patients; standard care: 11 practices with 128 patients; attrition rate: 3.9%. There was no difference between groups regarding the primary endpoint. Mean drug adherence rates were high for both groups (80% for antihypertensive and 91% for statin treatment). More ISDM-P patients made informed choices regarding statin intake, 34% vs 3%, OR 16.6 (95% CI 4.4 to 63.0), blood pressure control, 39% vs 3%, OR 22.2 (95% CI 5.3 to 93.3) and glycated haemoglobin, 43% vs 3%, OR 26.0 (95% CI 6.5 to 104.8). ISDM-P patients achieved higher levels of risk knowledge, with a mean score of 6.96 vs 2.86, difference 4.06 (95% CI 2.96 to 5.17). In the ISDM-P group, agreement on prioritised treatment goals between patients and doctors was higher, with 88.5% vs 57%. Conclusions The ISDM-P was successfully implemented in general practices. Adherence to medication was very high making improvements hardly detectable.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]   SPOTLIGHT: PATIENT CENTRED CARE Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens [J].
Agoritsas, Thomas ;
Heen, Anja Fog ;
Brandt, Linn ;
Alonso-Coello, Pablo ;
Kristiansen, Annette ;
Akl, Elie A. ;
Neumann, Ignacio ;
Tikkinen, Kari A. O. ;
van der Weijden, Trudy ;
Elwyn, Glyn ;
Montori, Victor M. ;
Guyatt, Gordon H. ;
Vandvik, Per Olav .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2015, 350
[2]   Exploring differences in the use of the statin choice decision aid and diabetes medication choice decision aid in primary care [J].
Ballard, Aimee Yu ;
Kessler, Maya ;
Scheitel, Marianne ;
Montori, Victor M. ;
Chaudhry, Rajeev .
BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2017, 17
[3]   Informed shared decision-making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial [J].
Buhse, Susanne ;
Muehlhauser, Ingrid ;
Heller, Tabitha ;
Kuniss, Nadine ;
Mueller, Ulrich Alfons ;
Kasper, Juergen ;
Lehmann, Thomas ;
Lenz, Matthias .
BMJ OPEN, 2015, 5 (11)
[4]   An informed shared decision making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: protocol of a cluster randomised, controlled trial [J].
Buhse, Susanne ;
Muehlhauser, Ingrid ;
Kuniss, Nadine ;
Mueller, Ulrich Alfons ;
Lehmann, Thomas ;
Liethmann, Katrin ;
Lenz, Matthias .
BMC FAMILY PRACTICE, 2015, 16
[5]   Disease management programs in Germany's statutory health insurance system [J].
Busse, R .
HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2004, 23 (03) :56-67
[6]   Statutory health insurance in Germany: a health system shaped by 135 years of solidarity, self-governance, and competition [J].
Busse, Reinhard ;
Bluemel, Miriam ;
Knieps, Franz ;
Barnighausen, Till .
LANCET, 2017, 390 (10097) :882-897
[7]   Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance [J].
Craig, Peter ;
Dieppe, Paul ;
Macintyre, Sally ;
Michie, Susan ;
Nazareth, Irwin ;
Petticrew, Mark .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 337 (7676) :979-983
[8]   Effectiveness of shared goal setting and decision making to achieve treatment targets in type 2 diabetes patients: A cluster-randomized trial (OPTIMAL) [J].
Den Ouden, Henk ;
Vos, Rimke C. ;
Rutten, Guy E. H. M. .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2017, 20 (05) :1172-1180
[9]   Effects of a patient oriented decision aid for prioritising treatment goals in diabetes: pragmatic randomised controlled trial [J].
Denig, Petra ;
Schuling, Jan ;
Haaijer-Ruskamp, Flora ;
Voorham, Jaco .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 349
[10]   Disease Management Programs for Type 2 Diabetes in Germany A Systematic Literature Review Evaluating Effectiveness [J].
Fuchs, Sabine ;
Henschke, Cornelia ;
Bluemel, Miriam ;
Busse, Reinhard .
DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL, 2014, 111 (26) :453-463