People with diabetes and ambulance staff perceptions of a booklet-based intervention for diabetic hypoglycaemia, "Hypos can strike twice": a mixed methods process evaluation.
Ambulance staff
Booklet-based intervention
Diabetes
Experiences
Hypoglycaemia
Perceptions
Process evaluation
Journal
BMC emergency medicine
ISSN: 1471-227X
Titre abrégé: BMC Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968543
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 02 2022
08 02 2022
Historique:
received:
08
11
2021
accepted:
27
01
2022
entrez:
9
2
2022
pubmed:
10
2
2022
medline:
19
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hypoglycaemia is a potentially serious condition, characterised by lower-than-normal blood glucose levels, common in people with diabetes (PWD). It can be prevented and self-managed if expert support, such as education on lifestyle and treatment, is provided. Our aim was to conduct a process evaluation to investigate how ambulance staff and PWD perceived the "Hypos can strike twice" booklet-based ambulance clinician intervention, including acceptability, understandability, usefulness, positive or negative effects, and facilitators or barriers to implementation. We used an explanatory sequential design with a self-administered questionnaire study followed by interviews of people with diabetes and ambulance staff. We followed the Medical Research Council framework for process evaluations of complex interventions to guide data collection and analysis. Following descriptive analysis (PWD and staff surveys), exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify staff questionnaire subscales and multiple regression models were fitted to identify demographic predictors of overall and subscale scores. 113 ambulance staff members and 46 PWD completed the survey. We conducted interviews with four ambulance staff members and five PWD who had been attended by an ambulance for a hypoglycaemic event. Based on surveys and interviews, there were positive attitudes to the intervention from both ambulance staff and PWD. Although the intervention was not always implemented, most staff members and PWD found the booklet informative, easy to read and to use or explain. PWD who completed the survey reported that receiving the booklet reminded and/or encouraged them to test their blood glucose more often, adjust their diet, and have a discussion/check up with their diabetes consultant. Interviewed PWD felt that the booklet intervention would be more valuable to less experienced patients or those who cannot manage their diabetes well. Overall, participants felt that the intervention could be beneficial, but were uncertain about whether it might help prevent a second hypoglycaemic event and/or reduce the number of repeat ambulance attendances. The 'Hypos may strike twice' intervention, which had demonstrable reductions in repeat attendances, was found to be feasible, acceptable to PWD and staff, prompting reported behaviour change and help-seeking from primary care. Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04243200 on 27 January 2020.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Hypoglycaemia is a potentially serious condition, characterised by lower-than-normal blood glucose levels, common in people with diabetes (PWD). It can be prevented and self-managed if expert support, such as education on lifestyle and treatment, is provided. Our aim was to conduct a process evaluation to investigate how ambulance staff and PWD perceived the "Hypos can strike twice" booklet-based ambulance clinician intervention, including acceptability, understandability, usefulness, positive or negative effects, and facilitators or barriers to implementation.
METHODS
We used an explanatory sequential design with a self-administered questionnaire study followed by interviews of people with diabetes and ambulance staff. We followed the Medical Research Council framework for process evaluations of complex interventions to guide data collection and analysis. Following descriptive analysis (PWD and staff surveys), exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify staff questionnaire subscales and multiple regression models were fitted to identify demographic predictors of overall and subscale scores.
RESULTS
113 ambulance staff members and 46 PWD completed the survey. We conducted interviews with four ambulance staff members and five PWD who had been attended by an ambulance for a hypoglycaemic event. Based on surveys and interviews, there were positive attitudes to the intervention from both ambulance staff and PWD. Although the intervention was not always implemented, most staff members and PWD found the booklet informative, easy to read and to use or explain. PWD who completed the survey reported that receiving the booklet reminded and/or encouraged them to test their blood glucose more often, adjust their diet, and have a discussion/check up with their diabetes consultant. Interviewed PWD felt that the booklet intervention would be more valuable to less experienced patients or those who cannot manage their diabetes well. Overall, participants felt that the intervention could be beneficial, but were uncertain about whether it might help prevent a second hypoglycaemic event and/or reduce the number of repeat ambulance attendances.
CONCLUSIONS
The 'Hypos may strike twice' intervention, which had demonstrable reductions in repeat attendances, was found to be feasible, acceptable to PWD and staff, prompting reported behaviour change and help-seeking from primary care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04243200 on 27 January 2020.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35135499
doi: 10.1186/s12873-022-00583-y
pii: 10.1186/s12873-022-00583-y
pmc: PMC8822761
doi:
Substances chimiques
Blood Glucose
0
Hypoglycemic Agents
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04243200']
Types de publication
Clinical Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
21Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 20;9(2):e024184
pubmed: 30787085
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2003 Oct-Dec;7(4):458-65
pubmed: 14582099
Diabet Med. 2021 Aug;38(8):e14569
pubmed: 33774853
Diabet Med. 2021 Oct;38(10):e14666
pubmed: 34327742
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Neth J Med. 2006 Sep;64(8):269-79
pubmed: 16990690
Emerg Med J. 2009 Jul;26(7):472-8
pubmed: 19546265
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012 Sep;10(3):169-80
pubmed: 22925613
Diabet Med. 2021 Oct;38(10):e14612
pubmed: 34053095
Prim Care Diabetes. 2013 Jul;7(2):159-65
pubmed: 23375384
Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2014 Dec;10(12):711-22
pubmed: 25287289
BMJ. 1990 Apr 7;300(6729):908-9
pubmed: 2337715
Health Serv Res. 2013 Dec;48(6 Pt 2):2134-56
pubmed: 24279835
Diabet Med. 1994 Jan-Feb;11(1):111-3
pubmed: 8181240
BMC Emerg Med. 2016 Feb 18;16:13
pubmed: 26893294
Diabetologia. 2019 Oct;62(10):1868-1879
pubmed: 31309262
Health Expect. 2017 Aug;20(4):531-542
pubmed: 27669682
Diabet Med. 2016 Apr;33(4):471-7
pubmed: 26179360
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2018 Apr 24;6(1):e000503
pubmed: 29713480
Endocr Pract. 2013 Jan-Feb;19(1):29-35
pubmed: 23186970
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002 Apr;46(4):464-8
pubmed: 11952452
Dan Med J. 2015 Apr;62(4):A5044
pubmed: 25872550
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017 Nov;133:50-59
pubmed: 28892731
Emerg Med J. 2006 Jun;23(6):449-51
pubmed: 16714506
Ann Fam Med. 2015 Nov;13(6):554-61
pubmed: 26553895