Asking the Right Questions About Secondhand Smoke.

INTRODUCTION: Despite knowledge about major health effects of secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) exposure, systematic incorporation of SHS screening and counseling in clinical settings has not occurred. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi Panel of tobacco control experts was convened to build consensus on the screening questions that should be asked and identify opportunities and barriers to SHS exposure screening and counseling. The panel considered four questions: (1) what questions should be asked about SHS exposure; (2) what are the top priorities to advance the goal of ensuring that these questions are asked; (3) what are the barriers to achieving these goals; and (4) how might these barriers be overcome. Each panel member submitted answers to the questions. Responses were summarized and successive rounds were reviewed by panel members for consolidation and prioritization. RESULTS: Panelists agreed that both adults and children should be screened during clinical encounters by asking if they are exposed or have ever been exposed to smoke from any tobacco products in their usual environment. The panel found that consistent clinician training, quality measurement or other accountability, and policy and electronic health records interventions were needed to successfully implement consistent screening. CONCLUSIONS: The panel successfully generated screening questions and identified priorities to improve SHS exposure screening. Policy interventions and stakeholder engagement are needed to overcome barriers to implementing effective SHS screening. IMPLICATIONS: In a modified Delphi panel, tobacco control and clinical prevention experts agreed that all adults and children should be screened during clinical encounters by asking if they are exposed or have ever been exposed to smoke from tobacco products. Consistent training, accountability, and policy and electronic health records interventions are needed to implement consistent screening. Increasing SHS screening will have a significant impact on public health and costs.

Group-based education for patients with type 2 diabetes: a survey of Australian dietitians.

Group-based education has the potential to substantially improve the outcomes of individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and reduce the enormous burden that chronic diseases place on healthcare systems worldwide. Despite this proven effectiveness, the utilisation of group services for the management of T2DM by Australian dietitians is surprisingly low. This study surveyed a sample of 263 Australian dietitians to explore the utilisation of group-based education for T2DM, as well as dietitians' preferences for practice and training. The results of this study indicate that Australian dietitians are currently under-utilising group-based education programs for the management of T2DM, with the primary reasons identified as a lack of training provided to dietitians in the area, limited access to facilities suitable for conducting group education, the perceived poor cost-effectiveness of these programs, and the lack of evidence-based practice guidelines for the group-based management of persons with T2DM. Additionally, the majority of preferences for further training were for either face-to-face or web-based formal training conducted over 3-6h. Clear, evidence-based practice guidelines and training resources for group education for the management of T2DM are needed in order to encourage better utilisation of group-based education by Australian dietitians.

Process evaluation of a patient-centred, patient-directed, group-based education program for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: The present study developed and evaluated a patient-centred, patient-directed, group-based education program for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Two frameworks, the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions and the RE-AIM framework were followed. Data to develop the intervention were sourced from scoping of the literature and formative evaluation. Program evaluation comprised analysis of primary recruitment of participants through general practitioners, baseline and end-point measures of anthropometry, four validated questionnaires, contemporaneous facilitator notes and telephone interviews with participants. RESULTS: A total of 16 participants enrolled in the intervention. Post-intervention results were obtained from 13 participants, with an estimated mean change from baseline in weight of -0.72 kg (95%CI -1.44 to -0.01), body mass index of -0.25 kg/m2 (95%CI -0.49 to -0.01) and waist circumference of -1.04 cm (95%CI -4.52 to 2.44). The group education program was acceptable to participants. The results suggest that recruitment through general practitioners is ineffective, and alternative recruitment strategies are required. CONCLUSIONS: This patient-centred, patient-directed, group-based intervention for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus was both feasible and acceptable to patients. Health professionals should consider the combined use of the MRC and RE-AIM frameworks in the development of interventions to ensure a rigorous design process and to enable the evaluation of all phases of the intervention, which will facilitate translation to other settings. Further research with a larger sample trialling additional recruitment strategies, evaluating further measures of effectiveness and utilising lengthier follow-up periods is required.

Group participants' experiences of a patient-directed group-based education program for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the experiences of individuals who participated in a group-based education program, including their motivators in relation to their diabetes management, and the perceived impact of group interactions on participants' experiences and motivation for self-management. Understanding individuals diagnosed with diabetes experiences of group-based education for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus may guide the development and facilitation of these programs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all individuals who participated in the intervention. Using thematic analysis underpinned by self-determination theory, we developed themes that explored participants' motivators in relation to diabetes management and the impact of group interactions on their experiences and motivation. RESULTS: The key themes included knowledge, experience, group interactions and motivation. Participants perceived that the group interactions facilitated further learning and increased motivation, achieved through normalization, peer identification or by talking with, and learning from the experience of others. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the use of patient-centred programs that prioritize group interactions over the didactic presentation of content, which may address relevant psychological needs of people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and improve their motivation and health behaviours. Future group-based education programs may benefit from the use of self-determination theory as a framework for intervention design to enhance participant motivation.