Suppr超能文献

远程医疗为基础的慢性病管理随机试验中的临床惰性:经验教训。

Clinical Inertia in a Randomized Trial of Telemedicine-Based Chronic Disease Management: Lessons Learned.

机构信息

1 Richmond Diabetes and Endocrinology, Bon Secours Medical Group , Richmond, Virginia.

2 Endocrinology Service, Guadalupe Regional Medical Center , Seguin, Texas.

出版信息

Telemed J E Health. 2018 Oct;24(10):742-748. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2017.0184. Epub 2018 Jan 17.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia perpetuate poor cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor control. Telemedicine interventions may counter both treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia.

INTRODUCTION

We explored why a telemedicine intervention designed to reduce treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia did not improve CVD risk factor control, despite enhancing treatment adherence versus usual care.

METHODS

In this analysis of a randomized trial, we studied recipients of the 12-month telemedicine intervention. This intervention comprised two nurse-administered components: (1) monthly self-management education targeting improved treatment adherence; and (2) quarterly medication management facilitation designed to support treatment intensification by primary care (thereby reducing clinical inertia). For each medication management facilitation encounter, we ascertained whether patients met treatment goals, and if not, whether primary care recommended treatment intensification following the encounter. We assessed disease control associated with encounters, where intensification was/was not recommended.

RESULTS

We examined 455 encounters across 182 intervention recipients (100% African Americans with type 2 diabetes). Even after accounting for valid reasons for deferring intensification (e.g., treatment nonadherence), intensification was not recommended in 67.5% of encounters in which hemoglobin A1c was above goal, 72.5% in which systolic blood pressure was above goal, and 73.9% in which low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was above goal. In each disease state, treatment intensification was more likely with poorer control.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite enhancing treatment adherence, this intervention was unsuccessful in countering clinical inertia, likely explaining its lack of effect on CVD risk factors. We identify several lessons learned that may benefit investigators and healthcare systems.

摘要

背景

治疗不依从和临床惰性会持续导致心血管疾病(CVD)风险因素控制不佳。远程医疗干预措施可能会同时对抗治疗不依从和临床惰性。

介绍

我们探讨了为什么旨在减少治疗不依从和临床惰性的远程医疗干预措施尽管与常规护理相比提高了治疗依从性,但并未改善 CVD 风险因素控制。

方法

在这项随机试验的分析中,我们研究了接受 12 个月远程医疗干预的患者。该干预措施包括两个由护士管理的组成部分:(1)每月自我管理教育,旨在提高治疗依从性;(2)每季度药物管理促进,旨在通过初级保健支持治疗强化(从而减少临床惰性)。对于每次药物管理促进会诊,我们确定患者是否达到治疗目标,如果没有达到,在会诊后初级保健是否建议进行治疗强化。我们评估了与会诊相关的疾病控制,其中是否推荐了强化治疗。

结果

我们检查了 182 名干预接受者中的 455 次会诊(100%为患有 2 型糖尿病的非裔美国人)。即使考虑到延迟强化治疗的合理原因(例如治疗不依从),在糖化血红蛋白高于目标的会诊中,建议强化治疗的比例为 67.5%;在收缩压高于目标的会诊中,建议强化治疗的比例为 72.5%;在低密度脂蛋白胆固醇高于目标的会诊中,建议强化治疗的比例为 73.9%。在每种疾病状态下,治疗强化的可能性都与控制效果较差有关。

结论

尽管提高了治疗依从性,但该干预措施在对抗临床惰性方面并不成功,这可能解释了它对 CVD 风险因素没有效果的原因。我们确定了一些可能对研究人员和医疗保健系统有益的经验教训。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验