HbA1c as a shared treatment goal in type 2 diabetes? A secondary analysis of the DEBATE trial.
Decision making
Diabetes mellitus type 2
General Practice
Glycated hemoglobin A
Journal
BMC primary care
ISSN: 2731-4553
Titre abrégé: BMC Prim Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918300889006676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 05 2023
13 05 2023
Historique:
received:
31
10
2022
accepted:
27
04
2023
medline:
15
5
2023
pubmed:
13
5
2023
entrez:
12
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major health problem in the western world. Despite a widespread implementation of integrated care programs there are still patients with poorly controlled T2DM. Shared goal setting within the process of Shared Decision Making (SDM) may increase patient's compliance and adherence to treatment regimen. In our secondary analysis of the cluster-randomized controlled DEBATE trial, we investigated if patients with shared vs. non-shared HbA1c treatment goal, achieve their glycemic goals. In a German primary care setting, we collected data before intervention at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. Patients with T2DM with an HbA1c ≥ 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) at the time of recruitment and complete data at baseline and after 24 months were eligible for the presented analyses. Using a generalized estimating equation analysis, we analysed the association between the achievement of HbA1c goals at 24 months based on their shared vs. non-shared status, age, sex, education, partner status, controlled for baseline HbA1c and insulin therapy. From N = 833 recruited patients at baseline, n = 547 (65.7%) from 105 General Practitioners (GPs) were analysed. 53.4% patients were male, 33.1% without a partner, 64.4% had a low educational level, mean age was 64.6 (SD 10.6), 60.7% took insulin at baseline, mean baseline HbA1c was 9.1 (SD 1.0). For 287 patients (52.5%), the GPs reported to use HbA1c as a shared goal, for 260 patients (47.5%) as a non-shared goal. 235 patients (43.0%) reached the HbA1c goal after two years, 312 patients (57.0%) missed it. Multivariable analysis shows that shared vs. non-shared HbA1c goal setting, age, sex, and education are not associated with the achievement of the HbA1c goal. However, patients living without a partner show a higher risk of missing the goal (p = .003; OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.25-2.86). Shared goal setting with T2DM patients targeting on HbA1c-levels had no significant impact on goal achievement. It may be assumed, that shared goal setting on patient-related clinical outcomes within the process of SDM has not been fully captured yet. The trial was registered at ISRCTN registry under the reference ISRCTN70713571.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major health problem in the western world. Despite a widespread implementation of integrated care programs there are still patients with poorly controlled T2DM. Shared goal setting within the process of Shared Decision Making (SDM) may increase patient's compliance and adherence to treatment regimen. In our secondary analysis of the cluster-randomized controlled DEBATE trial, we investigated if patients with shared vs. non-shared HbA1c treatment goal, achieve their glycemic goals.
METHODS
In a German primary care setting, we collected data before intervention at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. Patients with T2DM with an HbA1c ≥ 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) at the time of recruitment and complete data at baseline and after 24 months were eligible for the presented analyses. Using a generalized estimating equation analysis, we analysed the association between the achievement of HbA1c goals at 24 months based on their shared vs. non-shared status, age, sex, education, partner status, controlled for baseline HbA1c and insulin therapy.
RESULTS
From N = 833 recruited patients at baseline, n = 547 (65.7%) from 105 General Practitioners (GPs) were analysed. 53.4% patients were male, 33.1% without a partner, 64.4% had a low educational level, mean age was 64.6 (SD 10.6), 60.7% took insulin at baseline, mean baseline HbA1c was 9.1 (SD 1.0). For 287 patients (52.5%), the GPs reported to use HbA1c as a shared goal, for 260 patients (47.5%) as a non-shared goal. 235 patients (43.0%) reached the HbA1c goal after two years, 312 patients (57.0%) missed it. Multivariable analysis shows that shared vs. non-shared HbA1c goal setting, age, sex, and education are not associated with the achievement of the HbA1c goal. However, patients living without a partner show a higher risk of missing the goal (p = .003; OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.25-2.86).
CONCLUSIONS
Shared goal setting with T2DM patients targeting on HbA1c-levels had no significant impact on goal achievement. It may be assumed, that shared goal setting on patient-related clinical outcomes within the process of SDM has not been fully captured yet.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The trial was registered at ISRCTN registry under the reference ISRCTN70713571.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37173620
doi: 10.1186/s12875-023-02067-9
pii: 10.1186/s12875-023-02067-9
pmc: PMC10182591
doi:
Substances chimiques
Glycated Hemoglobin
0
Insulin
0
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN70713571']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
115Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Diabetologia. 2008 Jun;51(6):921-5
pubmed: 18389212
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016 Jan;32 Suppl 1:99-118
pubmed: 26342178
BMJ Open. 2012 Nov 05;2(6):
pubmed: 23129571
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 15;13(2):e0191747
pubmed: 29447193
Health Psychol. 2019 Feb;38(2):122-132
pubmed: 30652911
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011 Apr;13(4):429-33
pubmed: 21355726
Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Dec;100(12):2159-2171
pubmed: 28693922
Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2014 Jul-Sep;8(3):145-51
pubmed: 25220917
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 3;9(6):e025332
pubmed: 31164362
Diabetes Educ. 2007 Jul-Aug;33(4):700-8
pubmed: 17684171
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2018 Sep;19(5):424-447
pubmed: 29405097
Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2013 Sep;10(5):397-409
pubmed: 23711582
Curr Diabetes Rev. 2015;11(3):191-200
pubmed: 25824237
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jul;80(1):94-9
pubmed: 19879711
Prim Care Diabetes. 2019 Aug;13(4):353-359
pubmed: 30685382
BMJ Open. 2015 Nov 13;5(11):e009116
pubmed: 26567256
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2019 Dec 9;7(1):e000809
pubmed: 31875133
Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2004 Mar;98(2):89-92
pubmed: 15106486
Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Jul;92(1):94-9
pubmed: 23433777
Diabetologia. 2013 Dec;56(12):2593-600
pubmed: 23995472
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Jun;99(6):926-43
pubmed: 26658704
BMJ Qual Saf. 2021 Sep;30(9):706-714
pubmed: 33542066
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):526-35
pubmed: 18752915
BMC Fam Pract. 2012 Aug 22;13:88
pubmed: 22913642
Am J Med. 2009 May;122(5):443-53
pubmed: 19375554
BMJ. 2012 Jan 27;344:e256
pubmed: 22286508
Med Decis Making. 2015 Jan;35(1):114-31
pubmed: 25351843
Chronic Illn. 2009 Dec;5(4):268-76
pubmed: 19933249
BMC Fam Pract. 2019 Jun 25;20(1):87
pubmed: 31238871
Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Dec;93(3):549-58
pubmed: 24021417
Health Expect. 2015 Aug;18(4):542-61
pubmed: 23451939
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Sep 28;169(17):1560-8
pubmed: 19786674
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Aug 08;13:301
pubmed: 23927490
J Behav Med. 2012 Apr;35(2):221-39
pubmed: 21691845
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(1):CD001481
pubmed: 11279717
Diabetes Care. 2012 Jun;35(6):1364-79
pubmed: 22517736
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014 Feb;103(2):206-17
pubmed: 24300019
Diabetes Care. 2013 Aug;36(8):2271-9
pubmed: 23418368
Implement Sci. 2016 Aug 08;11:114
pubmed: 27502770
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 May 2;19(1):49
pubmed: 29720083
Acad Emerg Med. 2016 Dec;23(12):1320-1324
pubmed: 27770514
BMJ. 2010 Oct 14;341:c5146
pubmed: 20947577
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Nov 14;16:349
pubmed: 26573860