Effectiveness of tailored support for people with Type 2 diabetes after a first acute coronary event: a multicentre randomized controlled trial (the Diacourse-ACE study).

AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored, supportive intervention strategy in influencing diabetes-related distress, health status, well-being and clinical outcomes in people with Type 2 diabetes shortly after a first acute coronary event. METHODS: People with Type 2 diabetes and a recent first acute coronary event (n = 201) were randomized to the intervention group (three home visits by a diabetes nurse) or the attention control group (one telephone consultation). Outcomes were measured after discharge (baseline) and at 5 months (follow-up) using validated questionnaires for diabetes-related distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes), well-being (WHO Well-Being Index) and health status (Euroqol 5 Dimensions; Euroqol Visual Analogue Scale). ancova was used to analyse change-over-time differences between groups. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 81 participants in the intervention group (66.0 ± 9.3 years, 76% male) and 80 in the control group (65.6 ± 9.4 years, 75% male) participants. Mean diabetes-related distress was low after hospital discharge (intervention group: 8.2 ± 10.1; control group: 9.2 ± 12.4) and did not change after 5 months (intervention group: 9.2 ± 12.4; control group: 9.0 ± 11.2). Baseline well-being was less favourable but improved significantly in the intervention group (baseline: 58.5 ± 28.0; follow-up: 65.5 ± 23.7; P = 0.005), but not in the control group (baseline: 57.5 ± 25.2; follow-up: 59.6 ± 24.4; P = 0.481). Health status also improved in the intervention group (baseline: 69.9 ± 17.3; follow-up: 76.8 ± 15.6; P < 0.001) but not in the control group (baseline: 68.6 ± 15.9; follow-up: 69.9 ± 16.7; P = 0.470). A significant group effect was found for health status (F = 7.9; P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Although the intervention had no effect on diabetes-related distress, this might be at least partially attributable to very low levels of diabetes-related distress at baseline. Interestingly, health status scores and well-being, which were less favourable at baseline, both improved after the tailored support intervention.

Diabetes-related distress over the course of illness: results from the Diacourse study.

AIMS: To investigate the relationship between diabetes duration and diabetes-related distress and to examine the impact of micro- and macrovascular complications and blood glucose-lowering treatment on this relationship. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in people with Type 2 diabetes who participated in the Dutch Diacourse study (n = 590) and completed the Problem Areas in Diabetes questionnaire. Data on diabetes duration, micro- and macrovascular complications and blood glucose-lowering treatment were collected. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to investigate the association between diabetes duration and diabetes-related distress, and to examine whether complications and treatment could explain this association. RESULTS: A significant linear and quadratic association between diabetes duration and diabetes-related distress was found (duration: ß = 0.27, P = 0.005; duration(2): ß = -0.21, P = 0.030). The association between duration and distress could be explained by microvascular complications and insulin treatment, which were both more often present in people with a longer diabetes duration, and were associated with higher levels of diabetes-related distress (ß = 0.20, P < 0.001 and ß = 0.16, P = 0.006 respectively). Duration, age, gender, complications and treatment together explained 13.1% of the variance in distress. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes duration was associated with diabetes-related distress. This association can be explained largely by the presence of diabetes-related microvascular complications and insulin treatment. Healthcare providers should focus on distress in people with Type 2 diabetes in different stages over the course of illness, especially when complications are present or when people are on insulin treatment. As well as diabetes duration, complications and blood glucose-lowering treatment, diabetes-related distress is likely to be influenced by many other factors.

High intensity training in obesity: a Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: High Intensity training (HIT) is a time-effective alternative to traditional exercise programs in adults with obesity, but the superiority in terms of improving cardiopulmonary fitness and weight loss has not been demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: to determine the effectiveness of HIT on cardiopulmonary fitness and body composition in adults with obesity compared to traditional (high volume continuous) exercise. METHODS: A systematic search of the main health science databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials comparing HIT with traditional forms of exercise in people with obesity. Eighteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The (unstandardized) mean difference of each outcome parameters was calculated and pooled with the random effects model. RESULTS: HIT resulted in greater improvement of cardiopulmonary fitness (VO2max) (MD 1.83, 95% CI 0.70, 2.96, p<0.005; I2=31%) and a greater reduction of %body fat (MD -1.69, 95% CI -3.10, -0.27, p=0.02, I2=30%) compared to traditional exercise. Overall effect for BMI was not different between HIT and traditional exercise. CONCLUSION: Training at high intensity is superior to improve cardiopulmonary fitness and to reduce %body fat in adults with obesity compared to traditional exercise. Future studies are needed to design specific HIT programs for the obese with regard to optimal effect and long-term adherence.

Feasibility and applicability of the paper and electronic COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) in primary care: a clinimetric study.

Three questionnaires are recommended in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease, of which two are the more comprehensive assessments: the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire. Both are carefully designed high-quality questionnaires, but information on the feasibility for routine use is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the time to complete the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and the acceptability of the questionnaires. Furthermore, the agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was explored. The time to complete the electronic versions of the questionnaires was 99.6 [IQR 74; 157] vs. 97.5 [IQR 68; 136] seconds for clinical clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test, respectively. The difference in time to complete the questionnaire was not significant. The two questionnaires did not differ in "easiness to complete" or "importance of issues raised in questionnaires". Electronic vs. paper versions revealed high agreement (ICC CCQ = 0.815 [0.712; 0.883] and ICC CAT = 0.751 [0.608; 0.847]) between the administration methods. Based on this study it can be concluded that both questionnaires are equally suitable for use in routine clinical practice, because they are both quick to complete and have a good acceptability by the patient. Agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was high, so use of electronic versions is justified.COPD: QUESTIONNAIRES EQUALLY SUITABLE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Two questionnaires commonly used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) are equally suitable for routine primary care. Researchers in The Netherlands, led by Janwillem Kocks from the University Medical Center Groningen, administered both the COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) to 95 patients with the lung disease. These two tests are the most comprehensive assessments recommended by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease for guiding treatment decisions. The researchers found that both tests took approximately 95-100 s on average. Both tests were also equally easy to complete and provided similar types of information. Most patients said they had no preference for either one, and they filled out both electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires in much the same way. The authors conclude that both tests seem fine for routine use.