A multicomponent health care intervention is associated with improved glycaemic control in subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes compared with routine care: The INTEGRA study.

AIM: The INTEGRA study evaluated whether a specially designed multicomponent health care intervention improved glycaemic control in subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes compared with standard of care practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Pragmatic study in subjects from primary care centres with type 2 diabetes and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >9% (75 mmol/mol). The multifaceted intervention (N = 225 subjects) included a diabetes-focused visit encouraging therapeutic intensification by health care professionals. Retrospective data from matched controls (N = 675) were obtained from electronic medical records of a primary care database. The primary outcome was to compare the change in HbA1c values between the groups at 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: The mean HbA1c decreased substantially in both groups after 3 months, and the mean reduction was significantly greater in the intervention group than in the usual care group after 12 months [mean difference -0.66% (-7 mmol/mol), 95% CI -0.4, -1.0; p < .001]. A larger percentage of participants in the intervention group achieved HbA1c <7% and <8% goals (15.5% vs. 5.3% and 29.3% vs. 13.5%, respectively; p < .001). The improvement in HbA1c levels was sustained throughout the study only in the intervention arm. Glucose-lowering therapy was more frequently intensified in patients in the intervention group at the initial and final time points of the study (between 0-3 and 6-12 months; p < .001), with a significant increase in the number of patients prescribed ≥2 antidiabetic therapies (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted intervention oriented at reducing therapeutic inertia by primary care physicians was associated with greater improvement in glycaemic control compared with patients treated as per usual care.

A primary care psychoeducational group intervention for patients with depression and physical comorbidity: A qualitative study with a gender perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences and emotions of individuals with depression and physical comorbidity within the context of psychoeducational group interventions led by primary care nurses in Catalunya (Spain). METHOD: A psychoeducational group intervention was conducted in the first semester of 2019 with 13 primary care teams (rural/urban) and 95 participants with depression and physical comorbidity. The qualitative research and phenomenological perspective were based on 13 field diaries and 7 semi-structured interviews carried out with the observer nurses. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Codes were identified by segmenting the text into citations/verbatim accounts and emerging categories/subcategories by regrouping the codes. The results were triangulated among the researchers to identify and compare similarities and differences. RESULTS: Four major themes were found: (a) gender differences; (b) coping strategies and changes observed during the intervention; (c) functions of the group as a therapeutic element; and (d) the nurses' perceptions of the group experience. Gender differences were identified in relation to experiences and emotions. CONCLUSIONS: As some patients acquired skills/behaviours during the intervention that helped them initiate changes and the nurses were satisfied with the intervention, it is important to include this information when planning effective interventions for patients with this profile.

Participación pública en los proyectos de investigación: formas de crear conocimiento colectivo en salud / Public participation in research projects: ways of creating collective knowledge in health

La participación pública en los proyectos de investigación es un ámbito emergente en España y en los países latinoamericanos. Existen cinco tipos de proyectos según el grado de implicación que las personas participantes tienen en los procesos: contributivos, colaborativos, cocreados, contractuales e independientes. Para promover la participación pública en los equipos de investigación del ámbito de la salud es necesario redefinir sus prácticas y sus competencias. Para ello, puede ser útil formularse preguntas en las diferentes fases de la investigación, así como desarrollar estrategias que incluyan audiencias que cuenten con menos canales de participación en pro de favorecer la equidad en salud. Esta forma de hacer ciencia permite reunir experiencia y experticia priorizando y adecuando la investigación a las necesidades de la población, lo que aumenta su capacidad transformadora y el impacto social de sus resultados

Public participation in research projects is an emerging area in Spain and Latin American countries. There are five types of projects according to the degree of involvement that the participants have in the processes: contributory, collaborative, co-created, contractual and independent. In order to promote public participation in health research teams, their practices and competencies need to be redefined. To this end, it may be useful to ask questions in the different phases of the research, as well as to develop strategies that include audiences that have fewer channels of participation in favour of favouring equity in health. This way of doing science allows gathering experience and expertise prioritizing and adapting the research to the needs of the population, which increases its transforming capacity and the social impact of its results

[Public participation in research projects: ways of creating collective knowledge in health]. / Participación pública en los proyectos de investigación: formas de crear conocimiento colectivo en salud.

Public participation in research projects is an emerging area in Spain and Latin American countries. There are five types of projects according to the degree of involvement that the participants have in the processes: contributory, collaborative, co-created, contractual and independent. In order to promote public participation in health research teams, their practices and competencies need to be redefined. To this end, it may be useful to ask questions in the different phases of the research, as well as to develop strategies that include audiences that have fewer channels of participation in favour of favouring equity in health. This way of doing science allows gathering experience and expertise prioritizing and adapting the research to the needs of the population, which increases its transforming capacity and the social impact of its results.