Evaluating Therapeutic Inertia in Two Telehealth Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes: Secondary Analyses of a Randomized Trial.

Introduction: Although therapeutic inertia is a known driver of suboptimal type 2 diabetes control, little is known about how to combat this phenomenon. We analyzed randomized trial data to determine whether a comprehensive telehealth intervention was more effective than a less structured telehealth approach (telemonitoring and care coordination) at promoting treatment intensification in poorly controlled diabetes. Methods: Patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes were randomized 1:1 to telemonitoring/care coordination or a comprehensive telehealth intervention, which included an active, study provider-guided medication management component. Prospectively collected medication lists were used to determine whether treatment intensification occurred for each patient during 3-month intervals throughout the study period. To examine between-arm differences in treatment intensification over time, we fit a generalized estimation equation model. In each arm, hemoglobin A1c levels at the beginning and end of each 3-month interval were used to distinguish between therapeutic inertia and potentially appropriate nonintensification of treatment. Results: The mean, model-estimated likelihood of treatment intensification during 3-month intervals was 61.3% in the comprehensive telehealth group versus 48.6% for telemonitoring/care coordination (odds ratio 1.7, 95% confidence interval 1.2-2.2; p = 0.0007), with no evidence that treatment effect varied over time (p = 0.54). Treatment intervals with observed therapeutic inertia were more common in the telemonitoring/care coordination arm than the comprehensive telehealth arm (116/300, 39% vs. 57/275, 21%). Conclusions: A comprehensive telehealth approach that integrated protocol-guided medication management increased treatment intensification and reduced therapeutic inertia compared with a less structured telehealth approach. The studied approaches may serve as examples of how systems might use telehealth to combat therapeutic inertia. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03520413.

Validating a tool to measure spiritual beliefs, needs and resources in serious illness: The I-SPIRIT.

BACKGROUND: Seriously ill patients rely on spiritual and existential beliefs to support coping and approach crucial treatment and healthcare decisions. Yet, we lack gold standard, validated approaches to gathering information on those spiritual beliefs. Therefore, we developed I-SPIRIT, a spiritual needs and beliefs inventory for those with serious illness (IIR-10-050). METHODS: In prior work to develop measure content, we interviewed a total of 74 participants: 20 patients (veterans with Stage IV cancer, CHF, COPD, ESRD), 19 caregivers, 14 chaplains, 10 social workers, 12 nurses, and 5 physicians. Using directed content analyses, we identified over 50 attributes of spiritual experience comprising five domains: overall importance of spirituality; affiliations and practices; impact on decisions; spiritual needs; and spiritual resources. We then translated these attributes into individual items with Likert response scales. In the quantitative validation of I-SPIRIT, we administered the instrument and a battery of comparison measures to 249 seriously ill veterans. The comparison measures captured general spiritual well-being, religious coping, and emotional functioning. Convergent and discriminant validity was examined with the FACIT-sp (faith, meaning, and purpose), BMMRS (religious/spirituality), POMS and PHQ-8 (emotional function), and FACT-G (quality of life). We administered the I-SPIRIT a week later, for test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Psychometric analyses yielded a final I-SPIRIT Tool including 30 items. Results demonstrated reliability and validity and yielded a tool with three main components: Spiritual Beliefs (seven items); Spiritual Needs (nine items); and Spiritual Resources (14 items). The Spiritual Beliefs items include key practices and affiliations, and impact of beliefs on healthcare. Higher levels of Spiritual Needs were associated with higher anxiety and depression. CONCLUSION: The I-Spirit measures relevance of spirituality, spiritual needs and spiritual resources and demonstrates validity, reliability, and acceptability for patients with serious illness.

Diabetes distress in Veterans with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Qualitative descriptive study.

Diabetes distress (DD) is a negative psychosocial response to living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We sought insight into Veterans' experiences with DD in the context of T2DM self-management. The four domains in the Diabetes Distress Scale (i.e. regimen, emotional, interpersonal, healthcare provider) informed the interview guide and analysis (structural coding using thematic analysis). The mean age of the cohort (n = 36) was 59.1 years (SD 10.4); 8.3% of patients were female and 63.9% were Black or Mixed Race; mean A1C was 8.8% (SD 2.0); and mean DDS score was 2.4 (SD 1.1), indicating moderate distress. Veterans described DD and challenges to T2DM self-management across the four domains in the Diabetes Distress Scale. We found that (1) Veterans' challenges with their T2DM self-management routines influenced DD and (2) Veterans experienced DD across a wide range of domains, indicating that clinical interventions should take a "whole-person" approach.Trial Registration: NCT04587336.