文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

健康教练干预对改善糖尿病患者及其家属结局的效果:一项随机临床试验。

Effectiveness of a Health Coaching Intervention for Patient-Family Dyads to Improve Outcomes Among Adults With Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

机构信息

Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Nov 1;5(11):e2237960. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.37960.


DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.37960
PMID:36374502
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9664266/
Abstract

IMPORTANCE: More than 75% of US adults with diabetes do not meet treatment goals. More effective support from family and friends ("supporters") may improve diabetes management and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the Caring Others Increasing Engagement in Patient Aligned Care Teams (CO-IMPACT) intervention improves patient activation, diabetes management, and outcomes compared with standard care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted from November 2016 to August 2019 among participants recruited from 2 Veterans Health Administration primary care sites. All patient participants were adults aged 30 to 70 years with diabetes who had hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels greater than 8% of total hemoglobin (to convert to proportion of total hemoglobin, multiply by 0.01) or systolic blood pressure (SBP) higher than 150 mm Hg; each participating patient had an adult supporter. Of 1119 recruited, 239 patient-supporter dyads were enrolled between November 2016 and May 2018, randomized 1:1 to receive the CO-IMPACT intervention or standard care, and followed up for 12 to 15 months. Investigators and analysts were blinded to group assignment. INTERVENTIONS: Patient-supporter dyads received a health coaching session focused on dyadic information sharing and positive support techniques, then 12 months of biweekly automated monitoring telephone calls to prompt dyadic actions to meet diabetes goals, coaching calls to help dyads prepare for primary care visits, and after-visit summaries. Standard-care dyads received general diabetes education materials only. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted according to baseline dyad assignment. Primary prespecified outcomes were 12-month changes in Patient Activation Measure-13 (PAM-13) and UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) 5-year diabetes-specific cardiac event risk scores. Secondary outcomes included 12-month changes in HbA1c levels, SBP, diabetes self-management behaviors, diabetes distress, diabetes management self-efficacy, and satisfaction with health system support for the involvement of family supporters. Changes in outcome measures between baseline and 12 months were analyzed using linear regression models. RESULTS: A total of 239 dyads enrolled; among patient participants, the mean (SD) age was 60 (8.9) years, and 231 (96.7%) were male. The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c level was 8.5% (1.6%) and SBP was 140.2 mm Hg (18.4 mm Hg). A total of 168 patients (70.3%) lived with their enrolled supporter; 229 patients (95.8%) had complete 12-month outcome data. In intention-to-treat analyses vs standard care, CO-IMPACT patients had greater 12-month improvements in PAM-13 scores (intervention effect, 2.60 points; 95% CI, 0.02-5.18 points; P = .048) but nonsignificant differences in UKPDS 5-year cardiac risk (intervention effect, 1.01 points; 95% CI, -0.74 to 2.77 points; P = .26). Patients in the CO-IMPACT arm also had greater 12-month improvements in healthy eating (intervention effect, 0.71 d/wk; 95% CI, 0.20-1.22 d/wk; P = .007), diabetes self-efficacy (intervention effect, 0.40 points; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71 points; P = .01), and satisfaction with health system support for the family supporter participants' involvement (intervention effect, 0.28 points; 95% CI, 0.07-0.49 points; P = .009); however, the 2 arms had similar improvements in HbA1c levels and in other measures. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, the CO-IMPACT intervention successfully engaged patient-supporter dyads and led to improved patient activation and self-efficacy. Physiological outcomes improved similarly in both arms. More intensive direct coaching of supporters, or targeting patients with less preexisting support or fewer diabetes management resources, may have greater impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02328326.

摘要

重要性:超过 75% 的美国成年糖尿病患者未达到治疗目标。来自家人和朋友(“支持者”)的更有效的支持可能会改善糖尿病的管理和结果。

目的:确定与标准护理相比,关爱他人增加患者与护理团队的参与度(CO-IMPACT)干预是否能改善患者的积极性、糖尿病管理和结果。

设计、地点和参与者:这是一项随机临床试验,于 2016 年 11 月至 2019 年 8 月在退伍军人健康管理局的两个初级保健点招募参与者。所有患者参与者均为年龄在 30 至 70 岁之间的成年人,糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)水平高于总血红蛋白的 8%(要转换为总血红蛋白的比例,请将其乘以 0.01)或收缩压(SBP)高于 150 毫米汞柱;每位参与的患者都有一位成年支持者。在招募的 1119 人中,2016 年 11 月至 2018 年 5 月期间有 239 对患者-支持者二人组被随机分为 1:1 组,分别接受 CO-IMPACT 干预或标准护理,并随访 12 至 15 个月。研究人员和分析人员对分组情况不知情。

干预措施:患者-支持者二人组接受了一次健康辅导会议,重点是二人组信息共享和积极支持技巧,然后是 12 个月的每两周一次的自动监测电话,以促使二人组采取行动达到糖尿病目标,辅导电话帮助二人组为初级保健就诊做准备,以及就诊后总结。标准护理二人组仅接受一般糖尿病教育材料。

主要结果和措施:根据基线二人组分配进行意向治疗分析。主要预先指定的结果是 12 个月时患者积极性测量-13(PAM-13)和英国前瞻性糖尿病研究(UKPDS)5 年糖尿病特定心脏事件风险评分的变化。次要结果包括 12 个月时糖化血红蛋白水平、SBP、糖尿病自我管理行为、糖尿病困扰、糖尿病管理自我效能和对健康系统支持家庭支持者参与的满意度的变化。使用线性回归模型分析基线和 12 个月之间的结果测量变化。

结果:共有 239 对二人组入组;患者参与者的平均(SD)年龄为 60(8.9)岁,96.7%(231 人)为男性。平均(SD)基线糖化血红蛋白水平为 8.5%(1.6%),收缩压为 140.2 毫米汞柱(18.4 毫米汞柱)。共有 168 名患者(70.3%)与他们登记的支持者同住;229 名患者(95.8%)有完整的 12 个月结果数据。在意向治疗分析中,与标准护理相比,CO-IMPACT 患者的 PAM-13 评分在 12 个月时改善更大(干预效果,2.60 分;95%置信区间,0.02-5.18 分;P=0.048),但 UKPDS 5 年心脏风险无显著差异(干预效果,1.01 分;95%置信区间,-0.74 至 2.77 分;P=0.26)。CO-IMPACT 组的患者在 12 个月时也有更大的改善,包括更健康的饮食(干预效果,每周 0.71 天;95%置信区间,0.20-1.22 天;P=0.007)、糖尿病自我效能(干预效果,0.40 分;95%置信区间,0.09-0.71 分;P=0.01)和对健康系统支持家庭支持者参与的满意度(干预效果,0.28 分;95%置信区间,0.07-0.49 分;P=0.009);然而,两组在糖化血红蛋白水平和其他测量指标上的改善相似。

结论和相关性:在这项随机临床试验中,CO-IMPACT 干预成功地使患者-支持者二人组参与,并导致患者积极性和自我效能的提高。生理结果在两组中均有类似的改善。更密集的直接支持者辅导,或针对支持较少或糖尿病管理资源较少的患者,可能会产生更大的影响。

试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT02328326。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/791b/9664266/eebd482eb3f4/jamanetwopen-e2237960-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/791b/9664266/51f71e4ca7d4/jamanetwopen-e2237960-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/791b/9664266/eebd482eb3f4/jamanetwopen-e2237960-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/791b/9664266/51f71e4ca7d4/jamanetwopen-e2237960-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/791b/9664266/eebd482eb3f4/jamanetwopen-e2237960-g002.jpg

相似文献

[1]
Effectiveness of a Health Coaching Intervention for Patient-Family Dyads to Improve Outcomes Among Adults With Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Netw Open. 2022-11-1

[2]
Engaging family supporters of adult patients with diabetes to improve clinical and patient-centered outcomes: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Trials. 2018-7-24

[3]
Effect of a Collaborative Care Model on Depressive Symptoms and Glycated Hemoglobin, Blood Pressure, and Serum Cholesterol Among Patients With Depression and Diabetes in India: The INDEPENDENT Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA. 2020-8-18

[4]
Effect of a Peer Health Coaching Intervention on Clinical Outcomes Among US Veterans With Cardiovascular Risks: The Vet-COACH Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Netw Open. 2023-6-1

[5]

2021-6

[6]
Comparison of Collaborative Goal Setting With Enhanced Education for Managing Diabetes-Associated Distress and Hemoglobin A1c Levels: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Netw Open. 2022-5-2

[7]
Impact of a Dyadic Intervention on Family Supporter Involvement in Helping Adults Manage Type 2 Diabetes.

J Gen Intern Med. 2022-3

[8]
Effect of a Community Health Worker Intervention Among Latinos With Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes: The Miami Healthy Heart Initiative Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Intern Med. 2017-7-1

[9]
Structured, intensive education maximising engagement, motivation and long-term change for children and young people with diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluation - the CASCADE study.

Health Technol Assess. 2014-3

[10]
Effect of a Coordinated Community and Chronic Care Model Team Intervention vs Usual Care on Systolic Blood Pressure in Patients With Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: The SUCCEED Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Netw Open. 2021-2-1

引用本文的文献

[1]
Effectiveness of a theory-based tailored individual and family self-management education in adults with uncontrolled diabetes: A randomized controlled trial.

Int J Nurs Sci. 2025-7-10

[2]
2025 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diabetes Management in Korea: Recommendation of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Diabetes Metab J. 2025-7

[3]
Psychological Care Needs and Mental Health Service Use Among Adults with Diabetes: Evidence from the Diabetes, Distress, and Disparities (3D) Study.

Healthcare (Basel). 2025-6-14

[4]
Multilevel Interventions Demonstrate Mixed Effectiveness for Improving Blood Pressure Outcomes: A Rapid Review.

Healthcare (Basel). 2025-6-11

[5]
Evaluation of one-stop diagnosis and management at the collaborative national standardized metabolic disease management center.

Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2025-5-6

[6]
Acceptability of an AI-enabled family module in a mobile app for enhanced diabetes management: Patient and family perspectives.

Digit Health. 2025-3-25

[7]
5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025.

Diabetes Care. 2025-1-1

[8]
"Veteran to Veteran, There's Automatically a Trust": A Qualitative Study of Veterans' Experiences in a Peer Health-Coaching Program for Hypertension.

AJPM Focus. 2024-7-3

[9]
Patient-centered care in diabetes care-concepts, relationships and practice.

World J Diabetes. 2024-7-15

[10]
Implementing evidence-based practices to improve primary care for high-risk patients: study protocol for the VA high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) type III effectiveness-implementation trial.

Implement Sci Commun. 2024-7-15

本文引用的文献

[1]
Medication Adherence and Associated Factors in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Structural Equation Model.

Front Public Health. 2021

[2]
The effectiveness of goal setting on glycaemic control for people with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Adv Nurs. 2022-5

[3]
Changes in family involvement occasioned by FAMS mobile health intervention mediate changes in glycemic control over 12 months.

J Behav Med. 2022-2

[4]
Impact of a Dyadic Intervention on Family Supporter Involvement in Helping Adults Manage Type 2 Diabetes.

J Gen Intern Med. 2022-3

[5]
Trends in Diabetes Treatment and Control in U.S. Adults, 1999-2018.

N Engl J Med. 2021-6-10

[6]
Diabetes Self-management Education and Support in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus Report of the American Diabetes Association, the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of PAs, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the American Pharmacists Association.

Sci Diabetes Self Manag Care. 2021-2

[7]
Family interventions for adults living with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A qualitative meta-synthesis.

Patient Educ Couns. 2021-12

[8]
The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Association Between Diabetes Education and Support and Self-Care Management.

Health Educ Behav. 2022-8

[9]
Caregiver autonomy support: A systematic review of interventions for adults with chronic illness and their caregivers with narrative synthesis.

J Adv Nurs. 2021-4

[10]
Can autonomy support have an effect on type 2 diabetes glycemic control? Results of a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020-4

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

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索