RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management education and support can be effectively and efficiently delivered in primary care in the form of shared medical appointments (SMAs). Comparative effectiveness of SMA delivery features such as topic choice, multi-disciplinary care teams, and peer mentor involvement is not known. OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of standardized and patient-driven models of diabetes SMAs on patient-level diabetes outcomes. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1060 adults with type 2 diabetes in 22 primary care practices. INTERVENTIONS: Practice personnel delivered the 6-session Targeted Training in Illness Management (TTIM) curriculum using either standardized (set content delivered by a health educator) or patient-driven SMAs (patient-selected topic order delivered by health educators, behavioral health providers [BHPs], and peer mentors). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included self-reported diabetes distress and diabetes self-care behaviors from baseline and follow-up surveys (assessed at 1st and final SMA session), and HbA1c, BMI, and blood pressure from electronic health records. Analyses used descriptive statistics, linear regression, and linear mixed models. KEY RESULTS: Both standardized and patient-driven SMAs effectively improved diabetes distress, self-care behaviors, BMI (- 0.29 on average), and HbA1c (- 0.45% (mmol/mol) on average, 8.3 to 7.8%). Controlling for covariates, there was a small, significant effect of condition on overall diabetes distress in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,841) = 4.3, p = .04), attributable to significant effects of condition on emotion and regimen distress subscales. There was a small, significant effect of condition on diastolic blood pressure in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,5199) = 4.50, p = .03). There were no other differences between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Both SMA models using the TTIM curriculum yielded significant improvement in diabetes distress, self-care, and HbA1c. Patient-driven diabetes SMAs involving BHPs and peer mentors and topic selection did not lead to better clinical or patient-reported outcomes than standardized diabetes SMAs facilitated by a health educator following a set topic order. NIH TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT03590041.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This report describes how we refined a protocol for a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study of two models of an evidence-based diabetes shared medical appointment intervention and used the PRECIS-2 rating system to evaluate these adaptations. METHODS: We report primary data collected between June and August 2019, and protocol refinements completed between 2018 and 2020. Twenty-two members of the study team collaborated in protocol refinement and completed the PRECIS-2 ratings of study pragmatism. We discuss study design refinements made to achieve the desired level of pragmatism vs. experimental control for each of the nine PRECIS-2 dimensions. Study team members received training on PRECIS-2 scoring and were asked to rate the study protocol on the nine PRECIS-2 dimensions. Ratings were compared using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In general, the PRECIS-2 ratings revealed high levels of pragmatism, but somewhat less pragmatic ratings on the categories of Delivery and Organization (costs and resources). This variation was purposeful, and we provide the rationale for and steps taken to obtain the targeted level of pragmatism on each PRECIS-2 dimension, as well as detail design changes made to a) make the design more pragmatic and b) address COVID-19 issues. There was general agreement among team members and across different types of stakeholders on PRECIS-2 ratings. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss lessons learned from use of PRECIS-2 and experiences in refining the study to be maximally pragmatic on some dimensions and less so on other dimensions. This paper expands on prior research by describing actions to achieve higher levels of pragmatism and revise our protocol fit to the changed context. We make recommendations for future use of PRECIS-2 to help address changing context and other strategies for the planning of and transparent reporting on pragmatic research and comparative effectiveness research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Registration ID: NCT03590041 .