The Quebec Diabetes Empowerment Group Program: Program Description and Considerations Regarding Feasibility and Acceptability of Implementation in Primary Health Care Settings.

Introduction: Diabetes is a highly prevalent chronic disease that frequently coexists with other medical conditions and implies a high burden for patients and the healthcare system. Clinicians currently are challenged to provide effective interventions that are both multidisciplinary and empower patient self-care. The Diabetes Empowerment Group Program (DEGP) was developed with the aims of fostering patient engagement in diabetes self-care through the lens of empowerment and to support the empowerment of patients with diabetes by providing multidisciplinary group-based care. This research's objectives were to: (1) develop a comprehensive description of the DEGP for potential adopters, and (2) explore the factors influencing the feasibility and acceptability of implementing it in other healthcare settings in Montreal. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted, following a participatory approach. Data were obtained from: (1) semi-structured interviews with 14 patients who participated in the pilot program; (2) from semi-structured group interviews with patient partners, healthcare professionals, and other stakeholders from 4 Montreal family medicine groups, and (3) discussions among the participatory research team during various knowledge translation activities. Inductive content analysis of the data was performed. Results: The DEGP identified seven key elements: medical visit, continuity of care, group-based dynamics, multi-disciplinarity, clinician facilitation, patient-centered agenda, and a theoretical framework of empowerment. The content and organization of the group visits were conceived to address each of these four domains. The empowerment framework comprises four domains of self-care: emotional (attitude), cognitive (knowledge), behavioral (skills), and relational (relatedness). Factors impacting the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the DEGP in other primary care settings were identified. Discussion: The DEGP fits within the discourse around the need for more patient-centered programs for people living with diabetes, following a more comprehensive empowerment model. This research could facilitate the development or adaptation of similar programs in other settings.

Development and Validation of the McGill Empowerment Assessment-Diabetes (MEA-D).

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a prevalent chronic condition that poses a major burden for patients and the health care system. Evidence suggests that patient engagement in self-care improves diabetes control and reduces the risk of complications. To provide effective interventions that aim to improve empowerment processes relating to diabetes, a comprehensive and valid measure of empowerment is needed. This article details the development and validation of the McGill Empowerment Assessment-Diabetes (MEA-D). METHODS: The development and validation of the MEA-D questionnaire comprised three steps: item generation, qualitative face validation, and factorial content validation. An initial version was created by combining existing items and inductively generated items. Items were mapped to an empowerment framework with four domains: attitude, knowledge, behavior, and relatedness. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 adults living with diabetes to assess face validity. The questionnaire was revised by a team of clinicians, researchers, and patient-partners. Factorial content validation was then performed using responses from 300 adult Canadians living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: The final version of the MEA-D contained 28 items. A moderately good item-domain correlation was found between the individual items within the four domains. Cronbach's α was 0.81 (95% CI 0.78-0.85) for attitude, 0.73 (95% CI 0.67-0.79) for knowledge, 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.87) for behavior, and 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.84) for relatedness. CONCLUSION: The evaluation of diabetes programs demands a validated measure of empowerment. We developed the MEA-D to address this need. The MEA-D may be adapted to measure patients' empowerment regarding other chronic health conditions.

The cardiovascular effects of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists.

Although peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists are prescribed to improve cardiovascular risk factors, their cardiovascular safety is controversial. We therefore reviewed the literature to identify landmark randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonists (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone), alpha agonists (fenofibrate and gemfibrozil), and pan agonists (bezafibrate, muraglitazar, ragaglitazar, tesaglitazar, and aleglitazar) on cardiovascular outcomes. Pioglitazone may modestly reduce cardiovascular events but also may increase the risk of bladder cancer. Rosiglitazone increases the risk of myocardial infarction and has been withdrawn in European and restricted in the United States. Fibrates improve cardiovascular outcomes only in select subgroups: fenofibrate in diabetic patients with metabolic syndrome, gemfibrozil in patients with dyslipidemia, and bezafibrate in patients with diabetes or metabolic syndrome. The cardiovascular safety of the new pan agonist aleglitazar, currently in phase II trials, remains to be determined. The heterogenous effects of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists to date highlight the importance of postmarketing surveillance. The critical question of why peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists seem to improve cardiovascular risk factors without significantly improving cardiovascular outcomes requires further investigation.

Safety of laparoscopic vs open bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the risk of reoperation, wound infection, incisional hernia, anastomotic leak, and all-cause mortality associated with laparoscopic vs open bariatric surgery at a minimum of 12 months' follow-up. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases through June 1, 2010, for randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open bariatric surgery. STUDY SELECTION: We included all randomized controlled trials that reported weight loss outcomes and complications at a minimum of 12 months' follow-up and had a minimum of 50 patients. We identified 6 randomized controlled trials, which randomized 510 patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by 2 reviewers on study design, baseline characteristics, and surgical procedure. The outcome data extracted included change in weight and body mass index and the incidence of reoperation, wound infection, incisional hernia, anastomotic leak, and all-cause mortality. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used random-effects models, which accounted for within-study and between-study variability, to estimate pooled risk ratios (95% CIs). Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower risk of wound infection (relative risk [RR], 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07-0.65) and incisional hernia (RR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.35). The risk of reoperation (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.70-1.61), anastomotic leak (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.14-2.95), and all-cause mortality (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.22-3.28) may be similar for laparoscopic and open bariatric surgery. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery may be a safer treatment than open surgery for patients requiring bariatric surgery.

Seeking social connectedness: interdependent self-construal and impression formation using photographic cues of social connectedness.

Impression formation research has traditionally focused on either the characteristics of the target or of the participant, failing to examine their interplay. In the present study, we explored the role of interdependent self-construal on ratings of others who are portrayed as alone or connected. We hypothesized that participants with an interdependent view of the self would prefer others who are portrayed as socially connected, while the opposite would be true for participants low on interdependence. Results showed that college students high on interdependence rated a university professor photographed with another person relatively more positively than a professor photographed alone. This pattern was reversed for participants low on interdependence.