HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, 8170 33rd Ave S, Mail stop 21111R, Minneapolis, MN 55440, USA. Joann.M.SperlHillen@ healthpartners.com
Am J Manag Care. 2013 Feb;19(2):104-12.
To evaluate whether outcomes from diabetes self-management education for patients with suboptimal control were sustained.
A randomized controlled trial of 623 adults with type 2 diabetes and glycated hemoglobin (A1C) > 7% assigned to receive conventional individual education (IE), group education (GE) using US Diabetes Conversation Maps, or usual care (UC) with no education.
A1C tests, Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID), Diabetes Self-Efficacy (DES), Recommended Food Score (RFS), physical activity, and medication use were quantified at baseline and 1 year of follow-up through electronic health records and quarterly mailed surveys. Short-term (mean 6.8 months) and long-term (12.8 months) outcomes were evaluated using linear mixed models. In addition, follow-up trajectories were plotted in a random effects generalized additive model with smooth splines.
Compared with UC, IE resulted in long-term improved DES and PAID scores (DES, +.11, P = .03 and PAID, -2.94, P = .04), but not significantly improved long-term RFS or physical activity change. The A1C trajectory declined more steeply in IE than GE and UC for the first 150 days post randomization. However, by 250 days, there was no treatment group A1C difference. The model fit likelihood ratio test for A1C intervention trends was significant for 3 distinct non-linear trajectories (P = .02).
Conventional IE (but not GE) resulted in significant and sustained improvements in self-efficacy and reduced diabetes distress compared with UC, but short-term improvements in A1C, nutrition, and physical activity were not sustained. Patients may need ongoing reinforcement to achieve lasting behavioral change and glucose control.
评估针对血糖控制不佳的患者进行糖尿病自我管理教育的效果是否具有可持续性。
一项针对 623 名 2 型糖尿病患者和糖化血红蛋白(A1C)>7%的随机对照试验,将患者分为接受常规个体教育(IE)、使用美国糖尿病对话图的团体教育(GE)或无教育的常规护理(UC)。
通过电子健康记录和每季度邮寄调查,在基线和 1 年随访时量化 A1C 检测、糖尿病问题领域(PAID)、糖尿病自我效能(DES)、推荐食物评分(RFS)、体力活动和药物使用情况。使用线性混合模型评估短期(平均 6.8 个月)和长期(12.8 个月)结局。此外,采用随机效应广义加性模型和光滑样条绘制随访轨迹。
与 UC 相比,IE 可长期改善 DES 和 PAID 评分(DES:+0.11,P=0.03;PAID:-2.94,P=0.04),但对 RFS 或体力活动变化的长期改善不显著。IE 组的 A1C 轨迹在随机分组后前 150 天下降更陡峭,但到 250 天时,各组间 A1C 无差异。A1C 干预趋势的模型拟合似然比检验在 3 个不同的非线性轨迹中具有统计学意义(P=0.02)。
与 UC 相比,常规 IE(而非 GE)可显著改善自我效能和降低糖尿病困扰,但短期的 A1C、营养和体力活动改善并未持续。患者可能需要持续强化以实现持久的行为改变和血糖控制。