6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of an integrated diabetes care package at primary healthcare facilities: a cluster randomised trial in Pakistan

      research-article
      , DHA, MPH, PhD, FFPH 1 , , MComH, FFPH, MRCGP 2 , , MSc, MS 3 , * , , MSc, PhD 4 , , MBBS, MPhil (Public Health) 5 , , MSc, MPhil 6 , , MBBS 7 , , BSc, MA HMPP, MPH, FRIPH 8 , , MD 9
      BJGP Open
      Royal College of General Practitioners

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          There were an estimated 7 million people living with diabetes in Pakistan in 2014, and this is predicted to reach 11.4 million by 2030.

          Aim

          To assess if an integrated care package can achieve better control of diabetes.

          Design & setting

          The pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) was conducted from December 2014–June 2016 at 14 primary healthcare facilities in Sargodha district. Opportunistic screening, diagnostic testing, and patient recording processes were introduced in both the control 'testing, treating, and recording' (TTR) arm, and the intervention 'additional case management' (ACM) arm, which also included a clinical care guide and pictorial flipbook for lifestyle education, associated clinician training, and mobile phone follow-up.

          Method

          Clinics were randomised on a 1:1 basis (sealed envelope lottery method) and 250 patients recruited in the ACM arm and 245 in the TTR-only arm (age ≥25 years and HbA1c >7%). The primary outcome was mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to 9-month follow-up. Patients and staff were not blinded.

          Results

          The primary outcome was available for n = 238/250 (95.2%) participants in the ACM arm and n = 219/245 (89.4%) participants in the TTR-only arm (all clusters). Cluster level mean outcome was -2.26 pp (95% confidence intervals [CI] = -2.99 to -1.53) for the ACM arm, and -1.44 pp (95% CI = -2.34 to -0.54) for the TTR-only arm. Cluster level mean ACM–TTR difference (covariate-unadjusted) was -0.82 pp (95% CI = -1.86 to 0.21; P = 0.11).

          Conclusion

          The ACM intervention in public healthcare facilities did not show a statistically significant effect on HbA1c reduction compared to the control (TTR-only) arm. Future evaluation should assess changes after a longer follow-up period, and minimal care enhancement in the comparator (control) arm.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

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

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Randomised controlled trial of patient centred care of diabetes in general practice: impact on current wellbeing and future disease risk. The Diabetes Care From Diagnosis Research Team.

            To assess the effect of additional training of practice nurses and general practitioners in patient centred care on the lifestyle and psychological and physiological status of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Pragmatic parallel group design, with randomisation between practice teams to routine care (comparison group) or routine care plus additional training (intervention group); analysis at one year, allowing for practice effects and stratifiers; self reporting by patients on communication with practitioners, satisfaction with treatment, style of care, and lifestyle. 41 practices (21 in intervention group, 20 in comparison group) in a health region in southern England. 250/360 patients (aged 30-70 years) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and completing follow up at one year (142 in intervention group, 108 in comparison group). 1.5 days' group training for the doctors and nurses-introducing evidence for and skills of patient centred care and a patient held booklet encouraging questions. Quality of life, wellbeing, haemoglobin A1c and lipid concentrations, blood pressure, body mass index (kg/m2). Compared with patients in the C group, those in the intervention group reported better communication with the doctors (odds ratio 2.8; 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 4.3) and greater treatment satisfaction (1.6; 1.1 to 2.5) and wellbeing (difference in means (d) 2.8; 0.4 to 5.2). However, their body mass index was significantly higher (d=2.0; 0.3 to 3.8), as were triglyceride concentrations (d=0.4 mmol/l; 0.07 to 0.73 mmol/l), whereas knowledge scores were lower (d=-2.74; -0.23 to -5.25). Differences in lifestyle and glycaemic control were not significant. The findings suggest greater attention to the consultation process than to preventive care among trained practitioners; those committed to achieving the benefits of patient centred consulting should not lose the focus on disease management.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Gaps in Guidelines for the Management of Diabetes in Low- and Middle-Income Versus High-Income Countries—A Systematic Review

              OBJECTIVE The extent to which diabetes (DM) practice guidelines, often based on evidence from high-income countries (HIC), can be implemented to improve outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is a critical challenge. We carried out a systematic review to compare type 2 DM guidelines in individual LMIC versus HIC over the past decade to identify aspects that could be improved to facilitate implementation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Eligible guidelines were sought from online databases and websites of diabetes associations and ministries of health. Type 2 DM guidelines published between 2006 and 2016 with accessible full publications were included. Each of the 54 eligible guidelines was assessed for compliance with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards, coverage of the cardiovascular quadrangle (epidemiologic surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation), translatability, and its target audiences. RESULTS Most LMIC guidelines were inadequate in terms of applicability, clarity, and dissemination plan as well as socioeconomic and ethical-legal contextualization. LMIC guidelines targeted mainly health care providers, with only a few including patients (7%), payers (11%), and policy makers (18%) as their target audiences. Compared with HIC guidelines, the spectrum of DM clinical care addressed by LMIC guidelines was narrow. Most guidelines from the LMIC complied with less than half of the IOM standards, with 12% of the LMIC guidelines satisfying at least four IOM criteria as opposed to 60% of the HIC guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS A new approach to the contextualization, content development, and delivery of LMIC guidelines is needed to improve outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BJGP Open
                BJGP Open
                bjgpoa
                bjgpoa
                BJGP Open
                Royal College of General Practitioners
                2398-3795
                12 December 2018
                December 2018
                : 2
                : 4
                : bjgpopen18X101618
                Affiliations
                [1 ]deptChief Coordinating Professional , Association for Social Development , Islamabad, Pakistan
                [2 ]deptProfessor of International Public Health, Nuffield Centre for International Health and Development , Leeds Institute of Health Sciences , Leeds, UK
                [3 ]deptProject Coordinator , Association for Social Development , Islamabad, Pakistan
                [4 ]deptSenior Medical Statistician, Nuffield Centre for International Health and Development , Leeds Institute of Health Sciences , Leeds, UK
                [5 ]deptSenior Professional , Association for Social Development , Islamabad, Pakistan
                [6 ]deptAssistant Professor, Humanities and Social Sciences Department , Bahria University , Islamabad, Pakistan
                [7 ]deptResearch Coordinator , Association for Social Development , Islamabad, Pakistan
                [8 ]deptDirector, NCD & Mental Health , Directorate General of Health Services , Lahore, Pakistan
                [9 ]deptSenior Advisor, Department of Research , International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease , Winchester, UK
                Author notes
                *For correspondence: nidakhan@ 123456asd.com.pk
                Article
                01618
                10.3399/bjgpopen18X101618
                6348328
                30723803
                5e18e5fd-57c9-4158-bb3f-c3ff8168b0e3
                Copyright © 2018, The Authors

                This article is Open Access: CC BY-NC 4.0 license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

                History
                : 03 May 2018
                : 20 August 2018
                Categories
                Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article