A person-centred consultation intervention to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines (iFraP): a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial protocol.

Background: Good quality shared decision-making (SDM) conversations involve people with, or at risk of osteoporosis and clinicians collaborating to decide, where appropriate, which evidence-based medicines best fit the person's life, beliefs, and values. We developed the improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) intervention comprising a computerised Decision Support Tool (DST), clinician training package and information resources, for use in UK Fracture Liaison Service consultations.Two primary objectives to determine (1) the effect of the iFraP intervention on patient-reported ease in decision-making about osteoporosis medicines, and (2) cost-effectiveness of iFraP intervention compared to usual NHS care. Secondary objectives are to determine the iFraP intervention effect on patient reported outcome and experience measures, clinical effectiveness (osteoporosis medicine adherence), and to explore intervention acceptability, mechanisms, and processes underlying observed effects, and intervention implementation. Methods: The iFraP trial is a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial in patients referred to a Fracture Liaison Service, with nested mixed methods process evaluation and health economic analysis. Participants aged ≥50 years (n=380) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to one of two arms: (1) iFraP intervention (iFraP-i) or (2) comparator usual NHS care (iFraP-u) and are followed up at 2-weeks and 3-months. The primary outcome is ease of decision-making assessed 2 weeks after the consultation using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The primary objectives will be addressed by comparing the mean DCS score in each trial arm (using analysis of covariance) for patients given an osteoporosis medicine recommendation, alongside a within-trial cost-effectiveness and value of information (VoI) analysis. Process evaluation data collection includes consultation recordings, semi-structured interviews, and DST analytics. Discussion: The iFraP trial will answer important questions about the effectiveness of the new 'iFraP' osteoporosis DST, coupled with clinician training, on SDM and informed initiation of osteoporosis medicines. Trial registration ISRCTN: 10606407, 21/11/2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10606407.

Background: For people with osteoporosis, broken bones (called 'fragility fractures') can occur from low or no trauma and cause significant disability. Medicines can strengthen bone and lower the chance of fragility fractures. However, many people who experience a fragility fracture do not start or continue taking osteoporosis medicines. People commonly choose not to take osteoporosis medicines because they are unsure what medicines are for, confused about fracture 'risk' and/or worried about side-effects. To address this, we developed the 'iFraP intervention': 1. The iFraP 'decision-support tool': to support patients and healthcare professionals talk together to make decisions about medicines2. iFraP training for healthcare professionals to:a. use the tool in appointments with patientsb. give understandable, clear and consistent information c. listen to and address patient concerns This trial investigates whether the iFraP intervention makes decision-making about osteoporosis medicines easier, and whether it is cost-effective, acceptable and practical to deliver. Methods: 380 patients will take part who will be 50 years and older and referred to a fracture prevention service, because they have broken a bone. Patients taking part will be allocated to receive either a usual NHS appointment or an appointment using the iFraP intervention. Patients will complete a questionnaire before their appointment, and 2 weeks and 3 months afterwards. Some patients will be asked if they consent to have their appointment recorded and/or be interviewed, to understand how the decision-support tool is being used, and patient's views of the iFraP intervention. Outputs: If successful, the iFraP intervention will benefit patients and the NHS by helping patients make decisions about osteoporosis medicine. If the iFraP intervention increases the number of people with osteoporosis that start and continue taking osteoporosis medicines, iFraP will lower the number of future fractures, and reduce the negative outcomes that result from fractures (e.g. significant disability).

Social Determinants of Health Phenotypes and Cardiometabolic Condition Prevalence Among Patients in a Large Academic Health System: Latent Class Analysis.

Background: Adverse social determinants of health (SDoH) have been associated with cardiometabolic disease; however, disparities in cardiometabolic outcomes are rarely the result of a single risk factor. Objective: This study aimed to identify and characterize SDoH phenotypes based on patient-reported and neighborhood-level data from the institutional electronic medical record and evaluate the prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and other cardiometabolic diseases by phenotype status. Methods: Patient-reported SDoH were collected (January to December 2020) and neighborhood-level social vulnerability, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and rurality were linked via census tract to geocoded patient addresses. Diabetes status was coded in the electronic medical record using International Classification of Diseases codes; obesity was defined using measured BMI ≥30 kg/m2. Latent class analysis was used to identify clusters of SDoH (eg, phenotypes); we then examined differences in the prevalence of cardiometabolic conditions based on phenotype status using prevalence ratios (PRs). Results: Complete data were available for analysis for 2380 patients (mean age 53, SD 16 years; n=1405, 59% female; n=1198, 50% non-White). Roughly 8% (n=179) reported housing insecurity, 30% (n=710) reported resource needs (food, health care, or utilities), and 49% (n=1158) lived in a high-vulnerability census tract. We identified 3 patient SDoH phenotypes: (1) high social risk, defined largely by self-reported SDoH (n=217, 9%); (2) adverse neighborhood SDoH (n=1353, 56%), defined largely by adverse neighborhood-level measures; and (3) low social risk (n=810, 34%), defined as low individual- and neighborhood-level risks. Patients with an adverse neighborhood SDoH phenotype had higher prevalence of diagnosed type 2 diabetes (PR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.33), hypertension (PR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.27), peripheral vascular disease (PR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09-1.97), and heart failure (PR 1.46, 95% CI 1.20-1.79). Conclusions: Patients with the adverse neighborhood SDoH phenotype had higher prevalence of poor cardiometabolic conditions compared to phenotypes determined by individual-level characteristics, suggesting that neighborhood environment plays a role, even if individual measures of socioeconomic status are not suboptimal.

Cardiometabolic Disease Staging and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event Prediction in 2 Prospective Cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Cardiometabolic risk prediction models that incorporate metabolic syndrome traits to predict cardiovascular outcomes may help identify high-risk populations early in the progression of cardiometabolic disease. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine whether a modified cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) system, a validated diabetes prediction model, predicts major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). METHODS: We developed a predictive model using data accessible in clinical practice [fasting glucose, blood pressure, body mass index, cholesterol, triglycerides, smoking status, diabetes status, hypertension medication use] from the REGARDS (REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke) study to predict MACE [cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and/or nonfatal stroke]. Predictive performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves, mean squared errors, misclassification, and area under the curve (AUC) statistics. RESULTS: Among 20,234 REGARDS participants with no history of stroke or myocardial infarction (mean age 64 ± 9.3 years, 58% female, 41% non-Hispanic Black, and 18% diabetes), 2,695 developed incident MACE (13.3%) during a median 10-year follow-up. The CMDS development model in REGARDS for MACE had an AUC of 0.721. Our CMDS model performed similarly to both the ACC/AHA 10-year risk estimate (AUC 0.721 vs 0.716) and the Framingham risk score (AUC 0.673). CONCLUSIONS: The CMDS predicted the onset of MACE with good predictive ability and performed similarly or better than 2 commonly known cardiovascular disease prediction risk tools. These data underscore the importance of insulin resistance as a cardiovascular disease risk factor and that CMDS can be used to identify individuals at high risk for progression to cardiovascular disease.

Towards a shared understanding of the learning health system in a large academic-based health system: A qualitative analysis.

Healthcare delivery is currently undergoing major structural reform, and the Learning Health System (LHS) has been proposed as an aspirational model to guide healthcare transformation. As efforts to build LHS take considerable investment from health systems, it is critical to understand their leaders' perspectives on the rationale for pursuing an LHS and the potential benefits for doing so. This paper describes the qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews (n = 17) with health system leaders about their general perceptions of the LHS, description of key attributes and potential benefits, and perception of barriers to and facilitators for advancing the model. Participants universally endorsed the goal of the local health system aspiring to become an LHS. Participants identified many recognized attributes of LHS, though they emphasized unique attributes and potential benefits. There was also heterogeneity in participants' views on what to prioritize, how to structure the local LHS within existing initiatives, and how new initiatives should be implemented. Improving conceptual clarity of attributes of the LHS would improve its potential in guiding future reform.

Practice Facilitation and Peer Coaching for Uncontrolled Hypertension Among Black Individuals: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Rural Black participants need effective intervention to achieve better blood pressure (BP) control. Objective: Among Black rural adults with persistently uncontrolled hypertension attending primary care clinics, to determine whether peer coaching (PC), practice facilitation (PF), or both (PCPF) are superior to enhanced usual care (EUC) in improving BP control. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in 69 rural primary care practices across Alabama and North Carolina between September 23, 2016, and September 26, 2019. The participating practices were randomized to 4 groups: PC plus EUC, PF plus EUC, PCPF plus EUC, and EUC alone. The baseline EUC approach included a laptop for each participating practice with hyperlinks to participant education on hypertension, a binder of practice tips, a poster showing an algorithm for stepped care to improve BP, and 25 home BP monitors. The trial was stopped on February 28, 2021, after final data collection. The study included Black participants with persistently uncontrolled hypertension. Data were analyzed from February 28, 2021, to December 13, 2022. Interventions: Practice facilitators helped practices implement at least 4 quality improvement projects designed to improve BP control throughout 1 year. Peer coaches delivered a structured program via telephone on hypertension self-management throughout 1 year. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants in each trial group with BP values of less than 140/90 mm Hg at 6 months and 12 months. The secondary outcome was a change in the systolic BP of participants at 6 months and 12 months. Results: A total of 69 practices were randomized, and 1209 participants' data were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) age of participants was 58 (12) years, and 748 (62%) were women. In the intention-to-treat analyses, neither intervention alone nor in combination improved BP control or BP levels more than EUC (at 12 months, PF vs EUC odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.58-1.52]; PC vs EUC OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.83-2.04]; PCPF vs EUC OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.64-1.64]). In preplanned subgroup analyses, participants younger than 60 years in the PC and PCPF groups experienced a significant 5 mm Hg greater reduction in systolic BP than participants younger than 60 years in the EUC group at 12 months. Practicewide BP control estimates in PF groups suggested that BP control improved from 54% to 61%, a finding that was not observed in the trial's participants. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cluster randomized clinical trial demonstrated that neither PC nor PF demonstrated a superior improvement in overall BP control compared with EUC. However, PC led to a significant reduction in systolic BP among younger adults. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02866669.

Differential Effects of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Regimens on Diabetes Distress and Depressive Symptoms in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether adding basal insulin to metformin in adults with early type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) would increase emotional distress relative to other treatments. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) of adults with T2DM of <10 years' duration, HbA1c 6.8-8.5%, and taking metformin monotherapy randomly assigned participants to add insulin glargine U-100, sulfonylurea glimepiride, the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, or the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor sitagliptin. The Emotional Distress Substudy enrolled 1,739 GRADE participants (mean [SD] age 58.0 [10.2] years, 32% female, 56% non-Hispanic White, 18% non-Hispanic Black, 17% Hispanic) and assessed diabetes distress and depressive symptoms every 6 months. Analyses examined differences at 1 year and over the 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: Across treatments, diabetes distress (-0.24, P < 0.0001) and depressive symptoms (-0.67, P < 0.0001) decreased over 1 year. Diabetes distress was lower at 1 year for the glargine group than for the other groups combined (-0.10, P = 0.002). Diabetes distress was also lower for liraglutide than for glimepiride or sitagliptin (-0.10, P = 0.008). Over the 3-year follow-up, there were no significant group differences in total diabetes distress; interpersonal diabetes distress remained lower for those assigned to liraglutide. No significant differences were observed for depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expectations, this randomized trial found no evidence for a deleterious effect of basal insulin on emotional distress. Glargine lowered diabetes distress modestly at 1 year rather than increasing it. Liraglutide also reduced diabetes distress at 1 year. Results can inform treatment decisions for adults with early T2DM.

Telehealth Behavioral Intervention for Chronic Disease Self-Management in Adults With Physical Disabilities (My Health, My Life, My Way): Protocol for Intervention Fidelity and Dashboard Design for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with physical disabilities experience higher rates of chronic health conditions than individuals without physical disabilities. Self-management programs that use health coaching are effective at eliciting health behavior change in health outcomes such as goal setting, adherence, and health care use. Additionally, web-based resources such as telehealth-based technologies, including SMSS text messaging, web-based applications, and educational multimedia content, can complement health coaching to improve health-related behaviors and the use of health services. The complexity of studies using these resources requires a fidelity protocol to ensure that health behavior studies are administered properly. OBJECTIVE: The My Health, My Life, My Way fidelity protocol provides methods, strategies, and procedures of a multifaceted telehealth program for individuals with permanent physical disabilities and chronic health conditions. This health behavior study is a randomized controlled trial with four study arms: (1) scheduled coaching calls with gamified rewards, (2) no scheduled coaching calls with gamified rewards, (3) scheduled coaching calls with fixed rewards, and (4) no scheduled coaching calls with fixed rewards. To guide the fidelity protocol developed, we used the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium framework (NIH BCC). METHODS: The fidelity intervention protocol was developed by using the 5 primary domains provided by the NIH BCC: study design, provider training, treatment delivery, treatment receipt, and enactment of treatment skills. Following the NIH BCC guidelines and implementing social cognitive theory, this study is designed to ensure that all study arms receive equal treatment across conditions and groups. Health coaches and providers will be trained to deliver consistent health coaching, and thus participants will receive appropriate attention. Educational content will be developed to account for health literacy and comprehension of the material. Multiple fidelity intervention steps such as coaching call logs, regular content review, and participant progress monitoring will translate to participants using the skills learned in their daily lives. Different monitoring steps will be implemented to minimize differences among the 4 treatment groups. RESULTS: My Health, My Life, My Way has been approved by the institutional review board and will begin enrollment in January 2024 and end in December 2024, with results reported in early 2025. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention fidelity protocols are necessary to ensure that health behavior change studies can be implemented in larger real-world settings. The My Health, My Life, My Way fidelity protocol has used the guidelines by the NIH BCC to administer a telehealth intervention combined with health coaching for individuals with physical disabilities and chronic health conditions. This fidelity protocol can be used as a complementary resource for other researchers who conduct similar research using telehealth technologies and health coaching in real-world settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials NCT05481593; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05481593. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/53410.

Neighborhood Disadvantage and Risk of Heart Failure: The Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) affects >6 million US adults, with recent increases in HF hospitalizations. We aimed to investigate the association between neighborhood disadvantage and incident HF events and potential differences by diabetes status. METHODS: We included 23 645 participants from the REGARDS study (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke), a prospective cohort of Black and White adults aged ≥45 years living in the continental United States (baseline 2005-2007). Neighborhood disadvantage was assessed using a Z score of 6 census tract variables (2000 US Census) and categorized as quartiles. Incident HF hospitalizations or HF-related deaths through 2017 were adjudicated. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression was used to examine the association between neighborhood disadvantage and incident HF. Heterogeneity by diabetes was assessed using an interaction term. RESULTS: The mean age was 64.4 years, 39.5% were Black adults, 54.9% females, and 18.8% had diabetes. During a median follow-up of 10.7 years, there were 1125 incident HF events with an incidence rate of 3.3 (quartile 1), 4.7 (quartile 2), 5.2 (quartile 3), and 6.0 (quartile 4) per 1000 person-years. Compared to adults living in the most advantaged neighborhoods (quartile 1), those living in neighborhoods in quartiles 2, 3, and 4 (most disadvantaged) had 1.30 (95% CI, 1.06-1.60), 1.36 (95% CI, 1.11-1.66), and 1.45 (95% CI, 1.18-1.79) times greater hazard of incident HF even after accounting for known confounders. This association did not significantly differ by diabetes status (interaction P=0.59). For adults with diabetes, the adjusted incident HF hazards comparing those in quartile 4 versus quartile 1 was 1.34 (95% CI, 0.92-1.96), and it was 1.50 (95% CI, 1.16-1.94) for adults without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: In this large contemporaneous prospective cohort, neighborhood disadvantage was associated with an increased risk of incident HF events. This increase in HF risk did not differ by diabetes status. Addressing social, economic, and structural factors at the neighborhood level may impact HF prevention.

Emotional Distress Predicts Reduced Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Adherence in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

OBJECTIVE: We examined longitudinal associations between emotional distress (specifically, depressive symptoms and diabetes distress) and medication adherence in Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE), a large randomized controlled trial comparing four glucose-lowering medications added to metformin in adults with relatively recent-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Emotional Distress Substudy assessed medication adherence, depressive symptoms, and diabetes distress in 1,739 GRADE participants via self-completed questionnaires administered biannually up to 3 years. We examined baseline depressive symptoms and diabetes distress as predictors of medication adherence over 36 months. Bidirectional visit-to-visit relationships were also examined. Treatment satisfaction, beliefs about medication, diabetes care self-efficacy, and perceived control over diabetes were evaluated as mediators of longitudinal associations. RESULTS: At baseline, mean ± SD age of participants (56% of whom were White, 17% Hispanic/Latino, 18% Black, and 66% male) was 58.0 ± 10.2 years, diabetes duration 4.2 ± 2.8 years, HbA1c 7.5% ± 0.5%, and medication adherence 89.9% ± 11.1%. Higher baseline depressive symptoms and diabetes distress were independently associated with lower adherence over 36 months (P < 0.001). Higher depressive symptoms and diabetes distress at one visit predicted lower adherence at the subsequent 6-month visit (P < 0.0001) but not vice versa. Treatment assignment did not moderate relationships. Patient-reported concerns about diabetes medications mediated the largest percentage (11.9%-15.5%) of the longitudinal link between emotional distress and adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms and diabetes distress both predict lower adherence to glucose-lowering medications over time among adults with T2DM. Addressing emotional distress and concerns about anticipated negative effects of taking these treatments may be important to support diabetes treatment adherence.

Does Emotional Distress Predict Worse Glycemic Control Over Time? Results From the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether baseline levels of depressive symptoms and diabetes-specific distress are associated with glycemic control in Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE), a large randomized controlled trial comparing the metabolic effects of four common glucose-lowering medications when combined with metformin in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The primary and secondary outcomes were defined as an HbA1c value ≥7%, subsequently confirmed, and an HbA1c value >7.5%, subsequently confirmed, respectively. Separate Cox proportional hazards models assessed the association between baseline levels of each exposure of interest (depressive symptoms measured with the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire and diabetes distress measured with the Diabetes Distress Scale) and the subsequent risk of metabolic outcomes. RESULTS: This substudy included 1,739 participants (56% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 18% non-Hispanic Black, 17% Hispanic, and 68% male; mean [SD] age 58.0 [10.2] years, diabetes duration 4.2 [2.8] years, and HbA1c 7.5% [0.48%]). A total of 1,157 participants reached the primary outcome, with time to event of 2.1 years on average, while 738 participants reached the secondary outcome at 3 years on average. With adjustment for sex, race/ethnicity, treatment group, baseline age, duration of T2DM, BMI, and HbA1c, there were no significant associations between the depressive symptoms or diabetes distress and the subsequent risk of the primary or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings suggest that, at least for individuals with diabetes of relatively short duration, baseline levels of emotional distress are not associated with glycemic control over time.

Impact of Glucose-Lowering Medications on Health-Related Quality of Life in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes is associated with reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Information on the relationship between HRQoL and glucose-lowering medications in recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) is limited. We assessed changes in HRQoL in participants with T2D receiving metformin plus one of four glucose-lowering medications in Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 5,047 participants, baseline mean age 57 years, with <10 years T2D duration and glycated hemoglobin level 6.8-8.5% and taking metformin monotherapy, were randomly assigned to glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin. HRQoL was evaluated at baseline for 4,885 participants, and at years 1, 2, and 3, with use of the self-administered version of the Quality of Well-being Scale (QWB-SA) and SF-36 physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scales. Linear models were used to analyze changes in HRQoL over time in intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: None of the medications worsened HRQoL. There were no differences in QWB-SA or MCS by treatment group at any time point. PCS scores improved with liraglutide versus other groups at year 1 only. Greater weight loss during year 1 explained half the improvement in PCS scores with liraglutide versus glargine and glimepiride. Liraglutide participants in the upper tertile of baseline BMI showed the greatest improvement in PCS scores at year 1. CONCLUSIONS: Adding liraglutide to metformin in participants within 10 years of T2D diagnosis showed improvement in the SF-36 PCS in comparisons with the other medications at 1 year, which was no longer significant at years 2 and 3. Improvement was related to weight loss and baseline BMI.

The cost-effectiveness of adding an ultrasound corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence for the comparative cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection in people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of best current treatment (BCT) comprising advice and education plus a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection (USGI) of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (BCT+US-T) versus BCT alone. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis of BCT+US-T compared with BCT was undertaken over 6 months. Patient-level cost data were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: BCT+US-T was associated with lower mean NHS costs (BCT+US-T minus BCT: £-161.6, 95% CI: £-583.95 to £54.18) and small but significantly higher mean QALYs than BCT alone over 6 months (BCT+US-T minus BCT: 0.0487, 95% CI: 0.0091, 0.0886). In the base case, BCT+US-T was the most cost-effective and dominated BCT alone. Differences in total costs were driven by number of visits to NHS consultants, private physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and hip surgery, which were more common with BCT alone than BCT+US-T. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular corticosteroid injection plus BCT (BCT+US-T) for patients with hip OA results in lower costs and better outcomes, and is highly cost-effective, compared with BCT alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2014-003412-37 (August 8, 2015) and registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 50550256 (July 28, 2015). TRIAL PROTOCOL: Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0#citeas. DOI: doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0.

Stakeholders' Perspectives, Needs, and Barriers to Self-Management for People With Physical Disabilities Experiencing Chronic Conditions: Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: While self-management programs have had significant improvements for individuals with chronic conditions, less is known about the impact of self-management programs for individuals with physical disabilities who experience chronic conditions, as no holistic self-management programs exist for this population. Similarly, there is limited knowledge of how other stakeholders, such as caregivers, health experts, and researchers, view self-management programs in the context of disability, chronic health conditions, and assistive technologies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to obtain insight into how stakeholders perceive self-management relating to physical disability, chronic conditions, and assistive technologies. METHODS: Nine focus groups were conducted by 2 trained facilitators using semistructured interview guides. Each guide contained questions relating to stakeholders' experiences, challenges with self-management programs, and perceptions of assistive technologies. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was conducted on the focus group data. RESULTS: A total of 47 individuals participated in the focus groups. By using a constructivist grounded approach and inductive data collection, three main themes emerged from the focus groups: (1) perspectives, (2) needs, and (3) barriers of stakeholders. Stakeholders emphasized the importance of physical activity, mental health, symptom management, medication management, participant centeredness, and chronic disease and disability education. Participants viewed technology as a beneficial aide to their daily self-management and expressed their desire to have peer-to-peer support in web-based self-management programs. Additional views of technology included the ability to access individualized, educational content and connect with other individuals who experience similar health conditions or struggle with caregiving duties. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the development of any web-based self-management program should include mental health education and resources in addition to physical activity content and symptom management and be cost-effective. Beyond the inclusion of educational resources, stakeholders desired customization or patient centeredness in the program to meet the overall needs of individuals with physical disabilities and caregivers. The development of web-based self-management programs should be holistic in meeting the needs of all stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05481593; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05481593.

Age and sex differences in the association between neighborhood socioeconomic environment and incident diabetes: Results from the diabetes location, environmental attributes and disparities (LEAD) network.

Objective: Worse neighborhood socioeconomic environment (NSEE) may contribute to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We examined whether the relationship between NSEE and T2D differs by sex and age in three study populations. Research design and methods: We conducted a harmonized analysis using data from three independent longitudinal study samples in the US: 1) the Veteran Administration Diabetes Risk (VADR) cohort, 2) the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort, and 3) a case-control study of Geisinger electronic health records in Pennsylvania. We measured NSEE with a z-score sum of six census tract indicators within strata of community type (higher density urban, lower density urban, suburban/small town, and rural). Community type-stratified models evaluated the likelihood of new diagnoses of T2D in each study sample using restricted cubic splines and quartiles of NSEE. Results: Across study samples, worse NSEE was associated with higher risk of T2D. We observed significant effect modification by sex and age, though evidence of effect modification varied by site and community type. Largely, stronger associations between worse NSEE and diabetes risk were found among women relative to men and among those less than age 45 in the VADR cohort. Similar modification by age group results were observed in the Geisinger sample in small town/suburban communities only and similar modification by sex was observed in REGARDS in lower density urban communities. Conclusions: The impact of NSEE on T2D risk may differ for males and females and by age group within different community types.

Predictors of outcome in sciatica patients following an epidural steroid injection: the POiSE prospective observational cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Sciatica can be very painful and, in most cases, is due to pressure on a spinal nerve root from a disc herniation with associated inflammation. For some patients, the pain persists, and one management option is a spinal epidural steroid injection (ESI). The aim of an ESI is to relieve leg pain, improve function and reduce the need for surgery. ESIs work well in some patients but not in others, but we cannot identify these patient subgroups currently. This study aims to identify factors, including patient characteristics, clinical examination and imaging findings, that help in predicting who does well and who does not after an ESI. The overall objective is to develop a prognostic model to support individualised patient and clinical decision-making regarding ESI. METHODS: POiSE is a prospective cohort study of 439 patients with sciatica referred by their clinician for an ESI. Participants will receive weekly text messages until 12 weeks following their ESIand then again at 24 weeks following their ESI to collect data on leg pain severity. Questionnaires will be sent to participants at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 weeks after their ESI to collect data on pain, disability, recovery and additional interventions. The prognosis for the cohort will be described. The primary outcome measure for the prognostic model is leg pain at 6 weeks. Prognostic models will also be developed for secondary outcomes of disability and recovery at 6 weeks and additional interventions at 24 weeks following ESI. Statistical analyses will include multivariable linear and logistic regression with mixed effects model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The POiSE study has received ethical approval (South Central Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee 21/SC/0257). Dissemination will be guided by our patient and public engagement group and will include scientific publications, conference presentations and social media.

Patient-level factors associated with hemoglobin A1C testing in Alabama Medicaid beneficiaries with diabetes.

AIM: We evaluated patient-level factors associated with receipt of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing among Alabama Medicaid beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of person-year observations from Medicaid claims data from 2011 to 2020. Adults aged 19-64 years with type 2 diabetes and continuous enrollment in Medicaid for study year and year prior were included. Primary outcomes were ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 HbA1c test(s) per year. We conducted multivariable Poisson regression stratified by Medicaid eligibility reason (disability, poverty) examining the association of study year, demographics, clinical factors, and healthcare utilization with HbA1c testing. RESULTS: We analyzed 288,379 observations, 51% with disability-based, 49% poverty-based eligibility. Overall, 57% observations had ≥ 1 HbA1c, 35% had ≥ 2 HbA1c tests. More observations with disability-based than poverty-based eligibility had ≥ 1 (76% vs. 38%) and ≥ 2 HbA1c tests (49% vs. 20%). Patient-level factors were associated with a higher likelihood of having ≥ 1 HbA1c: Black race and older age (disability-based eligibility); year after 2011, female sex, and younger age (poverty-based eligibility); and rurality, insulin use, endocrinology care, diabetes complications, and ambulatory care visits (both groups). CONCLUSIONS: Just over one-third of adult Alabama Medicaid beneficiaries with diabetes had ≥ 2 HbA1c tests per year; testing frequency differed by Medicaid eligibility.

Trends and Predictors of Glycemic Control Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Covered by Alabama Medicaid, 2011-2019.

INTRODUCTION: Despite advances in diabetes management, only one-quarter of people with diabetes in the US achieve optimal targets for glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure, and cholesterol. We sought to evaluate temporal trends and predictors of achieving glycemic control among adults with type 2 diabetes covered by Alabama Medicaid from 2011 through 2019. METHODS: We completed a retrospective analysis of Medicaid claims and laboratory data, using person-years as the unit of analysis. Inclusion criteria were being aged 19 to 64 years, having a diabetes diagnosis, being continuously enrolled in Medicaid for a calendar year and preceding 12 months, and having at least 1 HbA1c result during the study year. Primary outcomes were HbA1c thresholds of <7% and <8%. Primary exposure was study year. We conducted separate multivariable-adjusted logistic regressions to evaluate relationships between study year and HbA1c thresholds. RESULTS: We included 43,997 person-year observations. Mean (SD) age was 51.0 (9.9) years; 69.4% were women; 48.1% were Black, 42.9% White, and 0.4% Hispanic. Overall, 49.1% had an HbA1c level of <7% and 64.6% <8%. Later study years and poverty-based eligibility were associated with lower probability of reaching target HbA1c levels of <7% or <8%. Sex, race, ethnicity, and geography were not associated with likelihood of reaching HbA1c <7% or <8% in any model. CONCLUSION: Later study years were associated with lower likelihood of meeting target HbA1c levels compared with 2011, after adjusting for covariates. With approximately 35% not meeting an HbA1c target of <8%, more work is needed to improve outcomes of low-income adults with type 2 diabetes.

Measuring continuity of care for diabetes: which visits to include?

OBJECTIVES: Continuity of care measures are widely used to evaluate the quality of health care delivery, but which visits are included vary across studies. Our objective was to determine how the provider specialties included affect continuity values, year-to-year stability, and association with emergency department (ED) visits. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of Alabama Medicaid administrative data. METHODS: We included beneficiaries with diabetes who had at least 3 outpatient visits in each of 2018 and 2019 (N = 9578). We defined 3 provider groupings: all providers, diabetes-broad (primary care, cardiology, neurology, endocrinology, ophthalmology, nephrology, and psychiatry), and diabetes-narrow (primary care and endocrinology). Continuity of care was calculated using the Continuity of Care Index (COCI) for each provider grouping. We compared correlation between measures and from year to year using Spearman correlations, and we used multivariable logistic regression to determine association with ED visits. RESULTS: The mean COCI was 0.54 using visits with all providers, 0.64 with diabetes-broad providers, and 0.83 with diabetes-narrow providers. COCI with diabetes-narrow providers was moderately correlated with the broader sets of providers (Spearman ρ, 0.52-0.65). Comparing each participant's COCI in 2018 with that in 2019, the mean intraperson difference was similar (0.16-0.22), and correlation was moderate (Spearman ρ, 0.41-0.47) for each measure. COCI had similar weak association with ED visits using each provider grouping (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99 for each 0.1-unit difference in COCI). CONCLUSIONS: Continuity values differed substantially depending on which provider specialties were included. The importance of this variation is uncertain, as continuity was weakly associated with ED visits using each of the measures.