"What's the Point?": Understanding Why People With Type 2 Diabetes Decline Structured Education.

Structured diabetes education (SDE) is an evidence-based intervention that supports self-management in people with type 2 diabetes. In the United Kingdom, health care providers working in primary care settings are responsible for referring people with type 2 diabetes to SDE programs. However, national audits record a high percentage of nonattenders. We explored the personal experience of living with type 2 diabetes that led to individuals declining invitations to attend SDE programs. The themes suggested that emotional, cognitive, and social issues related to diagnosis and living with diabetes may be responsible for declining to attend SDE and that these factors may be masked by explanations of practical barriers. A person-centered approach to understanding the personal meaning of being diagnosed and living with type 2 diabetes may help to identify individuals' psychosocial barriers to attending SDE.

Structured lifestyle education for people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and first-episode psychosis (STEPWISE): randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major challenge for people with schizophrenia.AimsWe assessed whether STEPWISE, a theory-based, group structured lifestyle education programme could support weight reduction in people with schizophrenia. METHOD: In this randomised controlled trial (study registration: ISRCTN19447796), we recruited adults with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or first-episode psychosis from ten mental health organisations in England. Participants were randomly allocated to the STEPWISE intervention or treatment as usual. The 12-month intervention comprised four 2.5 h weekly group sessions, followed by 2-weekly maintenance contact and group sessions at 4, 7 and 10 months. The primary outcome was weight change after 12 months. Key secondary outcomes included diet, physical activity, biomedical measures and patient-related outcome measures. Cost-effectiveness was assessed and a mixed-methods process evaluation was included. RESULTS: Between 10 March 2015 and 31 March 2016, we recruited 414 people (intervention 208, usual care 206) with 341 (84.4%) participants completing the trial. At 12 months, weight reduction did not differ between groups (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% CI -1.6 to 1.7, P = 0.963); physical activity, dietary intake and biochemical measures were unchanged. STEPWISE was well-received by participants and facilitators. The healthcare perspective incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £246 921 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were successfully recruited and retained, indicating a strong interest in weight interventions; however, the STEPWISE intervention was neither clinically nor cost-effective. Further research is needed to determine how to manage overweight and obesity in people with schizophrenia.Declaration of interestR.I.G.H. received fees for lecturing, consultancy work and attendance at conferences from the following: Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Lundbeck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, Sunovion, Takeda, MSD. M.J.D. reports personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Servier, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Inc.; and, grants from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen. K.K. has received fees for consultancy and speaker for Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Servier and Merck Sharp & Dohme. He has received grants in support of investigator and investigator-initiated trials from Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck Sharp & Dohme. K.K. has received funds for research, honoraria for speaking at meetings and has served on advisory boards for Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novo Nordisk. D.Sh. is expert advisor to the NICE Centre for guidelines; board member of the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH); clinical advisor (paid consultancy basis) to National Clinical Audit of Psychosis (NCAP); views are personal and not those of NICE, NCCMH or NCAP. J.P. received personal fees for involvement in the study from a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) grant. M.E.C. and Y.D. report grants from NIHR Health Technology Assessment, during the conduct of the study; and The Leicester Diabetes Centre, an organisation (employer) jointly hosted by an NHS Hospital Trust and the University of Leicester and who is holder (through the University of Leicester) of the copyright of the STEPWISE programme and of the DESMOND suite of programmes, training and intervention fidelity framework that were used in this study. S.R. has received honorarium from Lundbeck for lecturing. F.G. reports personal fees from Otsuka and Lundbeck, personal fees and non-financial support from Sunovion, outside the submitted work; and has a family member with professional links to Lilly and GSK, including shares. F.G. is in part funded by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research & Care Funding scheme, by the Maudsley Charity and by the Stanley Medical Research Institute and is supported by the by the Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London.

The development of a self-management intervention for stroke survivors - My Life After Stroke (MLAS).

PURPOSE: Long-term needs of stroke survivors (especially psychosocial needs and stroke prevention) are not adequately addressed. Self-management programmes exist but the optimal content and delivery approach is unclear. We aim to describe the process undertook to develop a structured self-management programme to address these unmet needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions, the development involved three phases: "Exploring the idea": Evidence synthesis and patient and public involvement (PPI) with stroke survivors, carers and healthcare professionals. "The iterative phase": Development and iterative refinement of the format, content, underpinning theories and philosophy of the self-management programme My Life After Stroke (MLAS), with PPI. MLAS consists of two individual appointments and four group sessions over nine weeks, delivered interactively by two trained facilitators. It aims to build independence, confidence and hope and focusses on stroke prevention, maximising physical potential, social support and managing emotional responses. MLAS is grounded in the narrative approach and social learning theory. "Ready for research": The refinement of a facilitator curriculum and participant resources to support programme delivery. RESULTS: Through a systematic process, we developed an evidence- and theory-based self-management programme for stroke survivors. CONCLUSIONS: MLAS warrants evaluation in a feasibility study.Implications for rehabilitationMy Life After Stroke(MLAS) has been developed using a systematic process, to address the unmet needs of stroke survivors.This systematic process, involved utilising evidence, theories, patient and public involvement, expertise and guidelines from other long-term conditions. This may further help the development of similar self-management programme within the field of stroke.MLAS warrants further evaluation within a feasibility study.

Does self monitoring of blood glucose as opposed to urinalysis provide additional benefit in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes receiving structured education? The DESMOND SMBG randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in people with type 2 diabetes on diet or oral agents other than sulphonylureas remains uncertain. Trials of interventions incorporating education about self-monitoring of blood glucose have reported mixed results. A recent systematic review concluded that SMBG was not cost-effective. However, what was unclear was whether a cheaper method of self-monitoring (such as urine glucose monitoring) could produce comparable benefit and patient acceptability for less cost. METHODS/DESIGN: The DESMOND SMBG trial is comparing two monitoring strategies (blood glucose monitoring and urine testing) over 18 months when incorporated into a comprehensive self-management structured education programme. It is a multi-site cluster randomised controlled trial, conducted across 8 sites (7 primary care trusts) in England, UK involving individuals with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes.The trial has 80% power to demonstrate equivalence in mean HbA1c (the primary end-point) at 18 months of within ± 0.5% assuming 20% drop out and 20% non-consent. Secondary end-points include blood pressure, lipids, body weight and psychosocial measures as well as a qualitative sub-study.Practices were randomised to one of two arms: participants attend a DESMOND programme incorporating a module on self-monitoring of either urine or blood glucose. The programme is delivered by accredited educators who received specific training about equipoise. Biomedical data are collected and psychosocial scales completed at baseline, and 6, 12, and 18 months post programme. Qualitative research with participants and educators will explore views and experiences of the trial and preferences for methods of monitoring. DISCUSSION: The DESMOND SMBG trial is designed to provide evidence to inform the debate about the value of self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Strengths include a setting in primary care, a cluster design, a health economic analysis, a comparison of different methods of monitoring while controlling for other components of training within the context of a quality assured structured education programme and a qualitative sub-study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN95696668.

Should glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) be used to detect people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose regulation?

There is a need to simplify screening tests for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) so patients can be identified earlier and more efficiently. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) has been recommended by some international organisations as a diagnostic tool for detecting T2DM and impaired glucose regulation (IGR, also termed prediabetes and includes impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance). The HbA1c cut-point of ≥6.5% (48 mmol/mol) has been selected as diagnostic for T2DM, while the cut-points for IGR are debated by the different international organisations: an International Expert Committee has suggested using HbA1c 6.0-6.4% (42-46 mmol/mol); however, the American Diabetes Association has recommended using HbA1c 5.7-6.4% (39-46 mmol/mol). Some countries will adopt a new method of reporting HbA1c values in millimoles per mole (mmol/mol). Use of HbA1c has some logistical advantages over using an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). As patients do not need to fast, appointments do not need to be limited to the morning. The HbA1c result reflects longer term glycaemia and is less affected by recent physical/emotional stress. However, there is some debate as to whether HbA1c should replace fasting plasma glucose or the OGTT. As the two tests detect different people, some individuals with diabetes detected on OGTT will no longer be classified as having T2DM using HbA1c ≥6.5% criteria. Furthermore, some medical conditions can result in HbA1c assay measurements not reflecting glycaemic control over the last 2-3 months; these include haematological disorders, renal failure, and chronic excess alcohol consumption.

Assessing the effectiveness of a goal-setting session as part of a structured group self-management education programme for people with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the number of people who have identified a behaviour change goal and completed an action-plan to meet their goal on completion of a diabetes self-management education programme (DSME) and level of success in sustaining their action-plan. The DSME people attended was Diabetes Education and Self-Management for Ongoing and Newly Diagnosed (DESMOND). METHODS: Copies of action-plans were collected from participants. Postal questionnaires were sent to participants one week and three months following DESMOND to assess factors associated with setting and sustaining action-plans. RESULTS: 92% (253/275) of participants completed an action-plan. Reducing weight was the area most targeted. Physical activity was the most common goal. 68% (187/275) returned a three month questionnaire. 96% indicated they were still working on their action plan, with 87% reporting they were always/usually meeting their action-plan. 22% said they had discussed their goal with a health care professional (HCP) following DESMOND. CONCLUSIONS: Goal-setting as part of a DSME can lead to behaviour change. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Goal-setting as part of a DSME enables participants to set and attain behaviour change goals. Informing HCPs of a person's action-plan following a DSME may further support a person undertaking behaviour change.

Reducing weight gain in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and first episode psychosis: describing the process of developing the STructured lifestyle Education for People With SchizophrEnia (STEPWISE) intervention.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is twice as common in people with schizophrenia as the general population and associated with significantly worsened psychiatric and physical health. Despite National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for the management of psychosis recommending that mental health services offer lifestyle programmes to people with schizophrenia to improve physical health, this is not currently occurring. The aim of the STEPWISE research programme was to develop a lifestyle intervention addressing obesity and preventing weight gain in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or first episode psychosis taking antipsychotic medication, through an approach and fundamental principles drawn from existing diabetes and diabetes prevention interventions. This paper describes the often under-reported process of developing such an intervention from first principles. METHODS: Following an extensive literature review, an iterative cycle of development with input from people with schizophrenia, mental healthcare professionals, facilitators, and other stakeholders, a new weight management intervention for the target group was developed. A set of four core weekly sessions was piloted in Sheffield, followed at 3-monthly intervals by three booster sessions and telephone support contact once every 2 weeks, to form an intervention lasting 12 months. Facilitators were provided with a 4-day training package to support delivery of the intervention. RESULTS: This paper reports the process of development, including challenges and how these were addressed. It describes how user input influenced the structure, topics, and approach of the intervention. The outcome of this process was a feasible and acceptable lifestyle intervention to support people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or first episode psychosis to manage their weight. This pilot provided opportunities for refinement of the intervention and facilitator training prior to testing in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Key findings from the pilot were linked to accessibility, focus, uptake, and retention, which influenced session length, travel arrangements, refreshment, breaks, and supporting tools to incentivise participants. CONCLUSIONS: The STEPWISE intervention has been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial in 10 mental health trusts in England, and the results will be published in the British Journal of Psychiatry and the NIHR Journals Library. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN19447796. Date registered: 20/03/2014.

Structured lifestyle education to support weight loss for people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and first episode psychosis: the STEPWISE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is twice as common in people with schizophrenia as in the general population. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommends that people with psychosis or schizophrenia, especially those taking antipsychotics, be offered a healthy eating and physical activity programme by their mental health care provider. There is insufficient evidence to inform how these lifestyle services should be commissioned. OBJECTIVES: To develop a lifestyle intervention for people with first episode psychosis or schizophrenia and to evaluate its clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, delivery and acceptability. DESIGN: A two-arm, analyst-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, using web-based randomisation; a mixed-methods process evaluation, including qualitative case study methods and logic modelling; and a cost-utility analysis. SETTING: Ten community mental health trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: People with first episode psychosis, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention group: (1) four 2.5-hour group-based structured lifestyle self-management education sessions, 1 week apart; (2) multimodal fortnightly support contacts; (3) three 2.5-hour group booster sessions at 3-monthly intervals, post core sessions. Control group: usual care assessed through a longitudinal survey. All participants received standard written lifestyle information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in weight (kg) at 12 months post randomisation. The key secondary outcomes measured at 3 and 12 months included self-reported nutrition (measured with the Dietary Instrument for Nutrition Education questionnaire), objectively measured physical activity measured by accelerometry [GENEActiv (Activinsights, Kimbolton, UK)], biomedical measures, adverse events, patient-reported outcome measures and a health economic assessment. RESULTS: The trial recruited 414 participants (intervention arm: 208 participants; usual care: 206 participants) between 10 March 2015 and 31 March 2016. A total of 341 participants (81.6%) completed the trial. A total of 412 participants were analysed. After 12 months, weight change did not differ between the groups (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% confidence interval -1.59 to 1.67 kg; p = 0.964); physical activity, dietary intake and biochemical measures were unchanged. Glycated haemoglobin, fasting glucose and lipid profile were unchanged by the intervention. Quality of life, psychiatric symptoms and illness perception did not change during the trial. There were three deaths, but none was related to the intervention. Most adverse events were expected and related to the psychiatric illness. The process evaluation showed that the intervention was acceptable, with participants valuing the opportunity to interact with others facing similar challenges. Session feedback indicated that 87.2% of participants agreed that the sessions had met their needs. Some indicated the desire for more ongoing support. Professionals felt that the intervention was under-resourced and questioned the long-term sustainability within current NHS settings. Professionals would have preferred greater access to participants' behaviour data to tailor the intervention better. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from the health-care perspective is £246,921 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from the societal perspective is £367,543 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenges of undertaking clinical research in this population, the trial successfully recruited and retained participants, indicating a high level of interest in weight management interventions; however, the STEPWISE intervention was neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Further research will be required to define how overweight and obesity in people with schizophrenia should be managed. The trial results suggest that lifestyle programmes for people with schizophrenia may need greater resourcing than for other populations, and interventions that have been shown to be effective in other populations, such as people with diabetes mellitus, are not necessarily effective in people with schizophrenia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19447796. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Is diabetes self-management education still the Cinderella of diabetes care?

This paper reflects on the status of diabetes self-management education (DSME) as a branch of diabetology in Europe and discusses some opportunities for better supporting DSME delivery. DSME (also commonly known as Therapeutic Patient Education) has been evolving as a therapy for diabetes for decades. As a continent, Europe is fortunate to have nurtured many pioneers in DSME, and currently has many experts in the field progressing the knowledge base and striving to improve access to DSME for people with diabetes. While there is a wide variety of DSME programmes being delivered throughout Europe, for most people diabetes education is not truly embedded in routine clinical care, being seen as more of an optional add-on to conventional therapies. In comparison to drugs and devices, DSME lacks investment, and funding for DSME research lags far behind other therapies. The rigour with which forms of DSME are developed and evaluated varies, and there is a lack of European quality standards. To try to address some of these deficiencies, greater pan-European collaboration and leadership is required.

Diabetes Education and Self-Management for Ongoing and Newly Diagnosed (DESMOND): process modelling of pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of a structured education program on illness beliefs, quality of life and physical activity in people newly diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Individuals attending a diabetes education and self-management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) program in 12 Primary Care Trusts completed questionnaire booklets assessing illness beliefs and quality of life at baseline and 3-month follow-up, metabolic control being assessed through assay of HbA1c. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-six individuals attended the structured self-management education sessions, with 97% and 64% completing baseline and 3-month follow-up questionnaires. At 3 months, individuals were more likely to: understand their diabetes; agree it is a chronic illness; agree it is a serious condition, and that they can affect its course. Individuals achieving a greater reduction in HbA1c over the first 3 months were more likely to agree they could control their diabetes at 3 months (r=0.24; p=0.05), and less likely to agree that diabetes would have a major impact on their day to day life (r=0.35; p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Pilot data indicate the DESMOND program for individuals newly diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes changes key illness beliefs and that these changes predict quality of life and metabolic control at 3-month follow-up. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Newly diagnosed individuals are open to attending self-management programs and, if the program is theoretically driven, can successfully engage with the true, serious nature of diabetes.

Effectiveness of a diabetes education and self management programme (DESMOND) for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: three year follow-up of a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To measure whether the benefits of a single education and self management structured programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus are sustained at three years. DESIGN: Three year follow-up of a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care, with randomisation at practice level. SETTING: 207 general practices in 13 primary care sites in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 731 of the 824 participants included in the original trial were eligible for follow-up. Biomedical data were collected on 604 (82.6%) and questionnaire data on 513 (70.1%) participants. INTERVENTION: A structured group education programme for six hours delivered in the community by two trained healthcare professional educators compared with usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels. The secondary outcomes were blood pressure, weight, blood lipid levels, smoking status, physical activity, quality of life, beliefs about illness, depression, emotional impact of diabetes, and drug use at three years. RESULTS: HbA(1c) levels at three years had decreased in both groups. After adjusting for baseline and cluster the difference was not significant (difference -0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.22 to 0.17). The groups did not differ for the other biomedical and lifestyle outcomes and drug use. The significant benefits in the intervention group across four out of five health beliefs seen at 12 months were sustained at three years (P<0.01). Depression scores and quality of life did not differ at three years. CONCLUSION: A single programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus showed no difference in biomedical or lifestyle outcomes at three years although there were sustained improvements in some illness beliefs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17844016.