Suppr超能文献

糖尿病群组诊疗中目标设定的比较效果:随机临床试验

Comparative effectiveness of goal setting in diabetes mellitus group clinics: randomized clinical trial.

作者信息

Naik Aanand D, Palmer Nynikka, Petersen Nancy J, Street Richard L, Rao Radha, Suarez-Almazor Maria, Haidet Paul

机构信息

Michael E. De-Bakey VAMC (152), Houston Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, 2002 Holcombe, Houston, TX 77030, USA.

出版信息

Arch Intern Med. 2011 Mar 14;171(5):453-9. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.70.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) group clinics can effectively control hypertension, but data to support glycemic control are equivocal. This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of 2 DM group clinic interventions on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels in primary care.

METHODS

Eighty-seven participants were recruited from a DM registry of a single regional Veterans Affairs medical center to participate in an open, randomized comparative effectiveness study. Two primary care-based DM group interventions of 3 months' duration were compared. Empowering Patients in Care (EPIC) was a clinician-led, patient-centered group clinic consisting of 4 sessions on setting self-management action plans (diet, exercise, home monitoring, medications, etc) and communicating about progress with action plans. The comparison intervention consisted of group education sessions with a DM educator and dietician followed by an additional visit with one's primary care provider. Hemoglobin A(1c) levels were compared after intervention and at the 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Participants in the EPIC intervention had significantly greater improvements in HbA(1c) levels immediately following the active intervention (8.86%-8.04% vs 8.74%-8.70% of total hemoglobin; mean [SD] between-group difference 0.67% [1.3%]; P=.03), and these differences persisted at the 1 year follow-up (0.59% [1.4%], P=.05). A repeated-measures analysis using all study time points found a significant time-by-treatment interaction effect on HbA(1c) levels favoring the EPIC intervention (F(2,85)=3.55; P=.03). The effect of the time-by-treatment interaction seems to be partially mediated by DM self-efficacy (F(1,85)=10.39; P=.002).

CONCLUSION

Primary care-based DM group clinics that include structured goal-setting approaches to self-management can significantly improve HbA(1c) levels after intervention and maintain improvements for 1 year. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00481286.

摘要

背景

糖尿病(DM)小组诊所可有效控制高血压,但支持血糖控制的数据并不明确。本研究评估了两种糖尿病小组诊所干预措施对初级保健中糖化血红蛋白(HbA₁c)水平的相对有效性。

方法

从单一地区退伍军人事务医疗中心的糖尿病登记处招募了87名参与者,参与一项开放、随机的比较有效性研究。比较了两种为期3个月的基于初级保健的糖尿病小组干预措施。“关爱中赋能患者”(EPIC)是一个由临床医生主导、以患者为中心的小组诊所,包括4次关于制定自我管理行动计划(饮食、运动、家庭监测、药物治疗等)以及就行动计划进展进行沟通的课程。对照干预措施包括由糖尿病教育者和营养师进行的小组教育课程,随后再与初级保健提供者进行一次就诊。在干预后及1年随访时比较糖化血红蛋白水平。

结果

在积极干预后,EPIC干预措施的参与者糖化血红蛋白水平有显著更大改善(占总血红蛋白的8.86% - 8.04% 对比8.74% - 8.70%;组间平均[标准差]差异为0.67% [1.3%];P = 0.03),且这些差异在1年随访时持续存在(0.59% [1.4%],P = 0.05)。使用所有研究时间点进行的重复测量分析发现,在糖化血红蛋白水平上存在显著的时间 - 治疗交互作用效应,有利于EPIC干预措施(F(2,85)=3.55;P = 0.03)。时间 - 治疗交互作用的效应似乎部分由糖尿病自我效能感介导(F(1,85)=10.39;P = 0.002)。

结论

基于初级保健的糖尿病小组诊所,若采用结构化的自我管理目标设定方法,干预后可显著改善糖化血红蛋白水平,并在1年内维持改善效果。试验注册 clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT00481286。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

4
Shared medical appointments: challenges and opportunities.共享医疗预约:挑战与机遇
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jun 1;152(11):745-6. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00012.
6
Patient empowerment: myths and misconceptions.患者赋权:误解与误区。
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jun;79(3):277-82. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.07.025. Epub 2009 Aug 13.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验