Department of Behavioral Medicine Research, Baystate Medical Center, 140 High Street, Room 2104, Springfield, MA 01105, United States.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011 Jan;91(1):54-60. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.09.036. Epub 2010 Nov 13.
To determine whether glycemic control is improved when motivational interviewing (MI), a patient-centered behavior change strategy, is used with diabetes self management education (DSME) as compared to DSME alone.
poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients (n=234) were randomized into 4 groups: MI+DSME or DSME alone, with or without use of a computerized summary of patient self management barriers. We compared HbA1c changes between groups at 6 months and investigated mediators of HbA1c change.
study patients attended the majority of the four intervention visits (mean 3.4), but drop-out rate was high at follow-up research visits (35%). Multiple regression showed that groups receiving MI had a mean change in HbA1c that was significantly lower (less improved) than those not receiving MI (t=2.10; p=0.037). Mediators of HbA1c change for the total group were diabetes self-care behaviors and diabetes distress; no between-group differences were found.
DSME improved blood glucose control, underlining its benefit for T2DM management. However, MI+DSME was less effective than DSME alone. Overall, weak support was found for the clinical utility of MI in the management of T2DM delivered by diabetes educators.
确定与单纯糖尿病自我管理教育(DSME)相比,使用以患者为中心的行为改变策略——动机性访谈(MI)是否会改善血糖控制。
将 234 名血糖控制不佳的 2 型糖尿病(T2DM)患者随机分为 4 组:MI+DSME 或单纯 DSME,是否使用患者自我管理障碍的计算机总结。我们比较了 6 个月时各组的 HbA1c 变化,并研究了 HbA1c 变化的中介因素。
研究患者参加了大部分四次干预访问(平均 3.4 次),但在随访研究访问时失访率很高(35%)。多元回归显示,接受 MI 的组的 HbA1c 变化平均值明显较低(改善程度较低),低于未接受 MI 的组(t=2.10;p=0.037)。HbA1c 变化的总体中介因素是糖尿病自我护理行为和糖尿病困扰;未发现组间差异。
DSME 改善了血糖控制,强调了其对 T2DM 管理的益处。然而,MI+DSME 不如单纯的 DSME 有效。总体而言,对糖尿病教育者提供的 T2DM 管理中 MI 的临床实用性的支持很弱。