An Electronic Medication Module to Improve Health Literacy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

PEPA chronic diseases electronic health record electronic medication module health literacy medication self-management patient empowerment structured medication review type 2 diabetes mellitus

Journal

JMIR formative research
ISSN: 2561-326X
Titre abrégé: JMIR Form Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101726394

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 04 2020
Historique:
received: 19 02 2019
accepted: 02 09 2019
revised: 19 07 2019
entrez: 29 4 2020
pubmed: 29 4 2020
medline: 29 4 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

In primary care, patients play a crucial role in managing care processes and handling drug treatment. A decisive factor for success is their health literacy, and several interventions have been introduced to support patients in fulfilling their responsibility. The aim of this study is to assess the influence of such an intervention (ie, a medication module) within a patient-led electronic health record on patients' health literacy. We conducted a randomized controlled study among community-dwelling patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients were recruited from primary care practices. After randomization, patients either had access to an internet-based medication module allowing them to store their medication information, look up drug information, and print a medication schedule (intervention group), or they received an information brochure on the importance of medication schedules (control group). After 4-8 weeks, all patients were invited to attend a structured medication review (ie, follow-up visit). Data were collected via questionnaires before the start of the intervention and during the follow-up visit. The main outcome measure was the mean difference in health literacy between baseline and follow-up assessments of patients in the control and intervention groups. Of 116 recruited patients, 107 (92.2%) completed the follow-up assessment and were eligible for intention-to-treat analyses. Only 73 patients, of which 29 were in the intervention group, followed the study protocol and were eligible for per-protocol analysis. No differences in overall health literacy were observed in either the intention-to-treat or in the per-protocol cohorts. Reasons for a null effect might be that the cohort was not particularly enriched with participants with low health literacy, thus precluding measurable improvement (ie, ceiling effect). Moreover, the success of implementation was considered poor because both the correct application of the study procedure (ie, randomization according to the protocol and dropout of 29 patients) and the actual interaction with the medication module was modest (ie, dropout of 9 patients). The conduct of this randomized controlled study was challenging, leaving it open whether inadequate implementation, too short of a duration, or insufficient efficacy of the intervention, as such, contributed to the null effect of this study. This clearly outlines the value of piloting complex interventions and the accompanying process evaluations.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
In primary care, patients play a crucial role in managing care processes and handling drug treatment. A decisive factor for success is their health literacy, and several interventions have been introduced to support patients in fulfilling their responsibility.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to assess the influence of such an intervention (ie, a medication module) within a patient-led electronic health record on patients' health literacy.
METHODS
We conducted a randomized controlled study among community-dwelling patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients were recruited from primary care practices. After randomization, patients either had access to an internet-based medication module allowing them to store their medication information, look up drug information, and print a medication schedule (intervention group), or they received an information brochure on the importance of medication schedules (control group). After 4-8 weeks, all patients were invited to attend a structured medication review (ie, follow-up visit). Data were collected via questionnaires before the start of the intervention and during the follow-up visit. The main outcome measure was the mean difference in health literacy between baseline and follow-up assessments of patients in the control and intervention groups.
RESULTS
Of 116 recruited patients, 107 (92.2%) completed the follow-up assessment and were eligible for intention-to-treat analyses. Only 73 patients, of which 29 were in the intervention group, followed the study protocol and were eligible for per-protocol analysis. No differences in overall health literacy were observed in either the intention-to-treat or in the per-protocol cohorts. Reasons for a null effect might be that the cohort was not particularly enriched with participants with low health literacy, thus precluding measurable improvement (ie, ceiling effect). Moreover, the success of implementation was considered poor because both the correct application of the study procedure (ie, randomization according to the protocol and dropout of 29 patients) and the actual interaction with the medication module was modest (ie, dropout of 9 patients).
CONCLUSIONS
The conduct of this randomized controlled study was challenging, leaving it open whether inadequate implementation, too short of a duration, or insufficient efficacy of the intervention, as such, contributed to the null effect of this study. This clearly outlines the value of piloting complex interventions and the accompanying process evaluations.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32343246
pii: v4i4e13746
doi: 10.2196/13746
pmc: PMC7218604
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e13746

Investigateurs

Gerda Bernhard (G)
Christian Jacke (C)
Bärbel Handlos (B)
Jens Kaltschmidt (J)
Gökce Karakas (G)
Christian Kasperk (C)
Marion Kiel (M)
Jieli Li (J)
Michael Metzner (M)
Peter Nawroth (P)
Hans Joachim Salize (HJ)

Informations de copyright

©Hanna Marita Seidling, Cornelia Mahler, Beate Strauß, Aline Weis, Marion Stützle, Johannes Krisam, INFOPAT P4/P5 Study Team, Joachim Szecsenyi, Walter Emil Haefeli. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (http://formative.jmir.org), 28.04.2020.

Références

J Med Internet Res. 2018 Mar 27;20(3):e105
pubmed: 29588269
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017 May;122:9-21
pubmed: 28499764
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 27;10(4):e0123937
pubmed: 25915420
Ann Intern Med. 2007 May 15;146(10):714-25
pubmed: 17502632
Comput Inform Nurs. 2017 Nov;35(11):565-573
pubmed: 28723832
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Mar 30;19(3):e99
pubmed: 28360022
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2018 Sep;14(9):824-830
pubmed: 29317189
BMC Public Health. 2013 Jul 16;13:658
pubmed: 23855504
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Feb 10;17(2):e44
pubmed: 25669240
Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Jun;75(3):334-9
pubmed: 19345053
J Health Commun. 2013;18 Suppl 1:20-30
pubmed: 24093342
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 May 1;20(3):519-25
pubmed: 23242764
Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10(3):135-40
pubmed: 11533420
BMC Public Health. 2012 Jan 25;12:80
pubmed: 22276600
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 24;12(2):e0172340
pubmed: 28234987
Psychol Med. 1998 May;28(3):551-8
pubmed: 9626712
J Med Internet Res. 2015 May 21;17(5):e121
pubmed: 25998006
Diabetes Educ. 2017 Apr;43(2):190-205
pubmed: 28340544
J Eval Clin Pract. 2010 Jun;16(3):574-9
pubmed: 20210821
JMIR Diabetes. 2018 Nov 06;3(4):e11199
pubmed: 30401665
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2011 Mar;(199):1-941
pubmed: 23126607
BMC Public Health. 2015 Jul 21;15:678
pubmed: 26194350
Support Care Cancer. 2015 Sep;23(9):2613-21
pubmed: 25652149
J Diabetes Res. 2016;2016:7823130
pubmed: 27761473
Patient Educ Couns. 2005 Apr;57(1):5-14
pubmed: 15797147
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1176-9
pubmed: 19659705
Ann Pharmacother. 2014 Jun;48(6):741-51
pubmed: 24619949
J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Nov;22(11):1523-6
pubmed: 17786521
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108(5-6):258-69
pubmed: 25066344
Eur J Public Health. 2015 Dec;25(6):1053-8
pubmed: 25843827

Auteurs

Hanna Marita Seidling (HM)

Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Cooperation Unit Clinical Pharmacy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Cornelia Mahler (C)

Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of Nursing Science, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.

Beate Strauß (B)

Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Aline Weis (A)

Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Marion Stützle (M)

Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Cooperation Unit Clinical Pharmacy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Johannes Krisam (J)

Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
See Acknowledgments, .

Joachim Szecsenyi (J)

Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Walter Emil Haefeli (WE)

Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Classifications MeSH