Patient and provider acceptance of telecoaching in type 2 diabetes: a mixed-method study embedded in a randomised clinical trial

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment of type 2 diabetes, suboptimal metabolic control persists. Patient education in diabetes has been proved to enhance self-efficacy and guideline-driven treatment, however many people with type 2 diabetes do not have access to or do not participate in self-management support programmes. Tele-education and telecoaching have the potential to improve accessibility and efficiency of care, but there is a slow uptake in Europe. Patient and provider acceptance in a local context is an important pre-condition for implementation. The aim of the study was to explore the perceptions of patients, nurses and general practitioners (GPs) regarding telecoaching in type 2 diabetes.

Methods

Mixed-method study embedded in a clinical trial, in which a nurse-led target-driven telecoaching programme consisting of 5 monthly telephone sessions of +/− 30 min was offered to 287 people with type 2 diabetes in Belgian primary care. Intervention attendance and satisfaction about the programme were analysed along with qualitative data obtained during post-trial semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patients, general practitioners (GPs) and nurses. The perceptions of patients and care providers about the intervention were coded and the themes interpreted as barriers or facilitators for adoption.

Results

Of 252 patients available for a follow-up analysis, 97.5 % reported being satisfied. Interviews were held with 16 patients, 17 general practitioners (GPs) and all nurses involved ( n = 6). Themes associated with adoption facilitation were: 1) improved diabetes control; 2) need for more tailored patient education programmes offered from the moment of diagnosis; 3) comfort and flexibility; 4) evidence-based nature of the programme; 5) established cooperation between GPs and diabetes educators; and 6) efficiency gains. Most potential barriers were derived from the provider views: 1) poor patient motivation and suboptimal compliance with “faceless” advice; 2) GPs’ reluctance in the area of patient referral and information sharing; 3) lack of legal, organisational and financial framework for telecare.

Conclusions

Nurse-led telecoaching of people with type 2 diabetes was well-accepted by patients and providers, with providers being in general more critical in their reflections. With increasing patient demand for mobile and remote services in healthcare, the findings of this study should support professionals involved in healthcare policy and innovation.

Trial registration

NCT01612520, registered prior to recruitment on 4th June 2012.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0383-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Related collections

Most cited references 23

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Andrea Tricco, Noah Ivers, Jeremy M. Grimshaw … (2012)

The effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) strategies on diabetes care remains unclear. We aimed to assess the effects of QI strategies on glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), vascular risk management, microvascular complication monitoring, and smoking cessation in patients with diabetes. We identified studies through Medline, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care database (from inception to July 2010), and references of included randomised clinical trials. We included trials assessing 11 predefined QI strategies or financial incentives targeting health systems, health-care professionals, or patients to improve management of adult outpatients with diabetes. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised risk of bias. We reviewed 48 cluster randomised controlled trials, including 2538 clusters and 84,865 patients, and 94 patient randomised controlled trials, including 38,664 patients. In random effects meta-analysis, the QI strategies reduced HbA(1c) by a mean difference of 0·37% (95% CI 0·28-0·45; 120 trials), LDL cholesterol by 0·10 mmol/L (0·05-0.14; 47 trials), systolic blood pressure by 3·13 mm Hg (2·19-4·06, 65 trials), and diastolic blood pressure by 1·55 mm Hg (0·95-2·15, 61 trials) versus usual care. We noted larger effects when baseline concentrations were greater than 8·0% for HbA(1c), 2·59 mmol/L for LDL cholesterol, and 80 mm Hg for diastolic and 140 mm Hg for systolic blood pressure. The effectiveness of QI strategies varied depending on baseline HbA(1c) control. QI strategies increased the likelihood that patients received aspirin (11 trials; relative risk [RR] 1·33, 95% CI 1·21-1·45), antihypertensive drugs (ten trials; RR 1·17, 1·01-1·37), and screening for retinopathy (23 trials; RR 1·22, 1·13-1·32), renal function (14 trials; RR 128, 1·13-1·44), and foot abnormalities (22 trials; RR 1·27, 1·16-1·39). However, statin use (ten trials; RR 1·12, 0·99-1·28), hypertension control (18 trials; RR 1·01, 0·96-1·07), and smoking cessation (13 trials; RR 1·13, 0·99-1·29) were not significantly increased. Many trials of QI strategies showed improvements in diabetes care. Interventions targeting the system of chronic disease management along with patient-mediated QI strategies should be an important component of interventions aimed at improving diabetes management. Interventions solely targeting health-care professionals seem to be beneficial only if baseline HbA(1c) control is poor. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care and the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (now Alberta Innovates--Health Solutions). Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 244 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Barriers to diabetes management: patient and provider factors.

Soohyun Nam, Catherine Chesla, Nancy Stotts … (2011)

Despite significant advances in diagnosis and treatment, the persistence of inadequate metabolic control continues. Poor glycemic control may be reflected by both the failure of diabetes self-management by patients as well as inadequate intervention strategies by clinicians. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize existing knowledge regarding various barriers of diabetes management from the perspectives of both patients and clinicians. A search of PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, and PsycINFO identified 1454 articles in English published between 1990 and 2009, addressing type 2 diabetes, patient's barriers, clinician's barriers, and self-management. Patients' adherence, attitude, beliefs, and knowledge about diabetes may affect diabetes self-management. Culture and language capabilities influence the patient's health beliefs, attitudes, health literacy, thereby affecting diabetes self-management. Other influential factors include the patient's financial resources, co-morbidities, and social support. Clinician's attitude, beliefs and knowledge about diabetes also influence diabetes management. Clinicians may further influence the patient's perception through effective communication skills and by having a well-integrated health care system. Identifying barriers to diabetes management is necessary to improve the quality of diabetes care, including the improvement of metabolic control, and diabetes self-management. Further research that considers these barriers is necessary for developing interventions for individuals with type 2 diabetes. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 206 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review.

Robyn Clark, Aaron Conway, Vanessa Poulsen … (2015)

The traditional hospital-based model of cardiac rehabilitation faces substantial challenges, such as cost and accessibility. These challenges have led to the development of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation in recent years. The aim of this study was to identify and critique evidence for the effectiveness of these alternative models. A total of 22 databases were searched to identify quantitative studies or systematic reviews of quantitative studies regarding the effectiveness of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation. Included studies were appraised using a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool and the National Health and Medical Research Council's designations for Level of Evidence. The 83 included articles described interventions in the following broad categories of alternative models of care: multifactorial individualized telehealth, internet based, telehealth focused on exercise, telehealth focused on recovery, community- or home-based, and complementary therapies. Multifactorial individualized telehealth and community- or home-based cardiac rehabilitation are effective alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation, as they have produced similar reductions in cardiovascular disease risk factors compared with hospital-based programmes. While further research is required to address the paucity of data available regarding the effectiveness of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation in rural, remote, and culturally and linguistically diverse populations, our review indicates there is no need to rely on hospital-based strategies alone to deliver effective cardiac rehabilitation. Local healthcare systems should strive to integrate alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation, such as brief telehealth interventions tailored to individual's risk factor profiles as well as community- or home-based programmes, in order to ensure there are choices available for patients that best fit their needs, risk factor profile, and preferences.

0 comments Cited 113 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

I. Odnoletkova: irina.v.odnoletkova@gmail.com

H. Buysse: heidi.buysse@ugent.be

F. Nobels: frank.nobels@olvz-aalst.be

G. Goderis: geert.goderis@med.kuleuven.be

B. Aertgeerts: bert.aertgeerts@med.kuleuven.be

L. Annemans: lieven.annemans@ugent.be

D. Ramaekers: dirk.ramaekers@med.kuleuven.be

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

Title: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1472-6947

Publication date (Electronic): 9 November 2016

Publication date PMC-release: 9 November 2016

Publication date Collection: 2016

Volume: 16

Electronic Location Identifier: 142

Affiliations

[1 ]Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, Leuven, B-3000 Belgium

[2 ]Department of Public Health, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 4K3, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

[3 ]Department of Endocrinology, OLV Hospital Aalst, Moorselbaan 164, 9300 Aalst, Belgium

[4 ]Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, Leuven, B-3000 Belgium

Article

Publisher ID: 383

DOI: 10.1186/s12911-016-0383-3

PMC ID: 5101679

PubMed ID: 27825340

SO-VID: 4520cabd-a7a6-4914-b709-cc8189df6cc0

License:

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.