{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Comparative Effectiveness of Patient-Driven versus Standardized Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.
{Author}: Kwan BM;Dickinson LM;Dailey-Vail J;Glasgow RE;Gritz RM;Gurfinkel D;Hester CM;Holtrop JS;Hosokawa P;Lanigan A;Nease DE;Nederveld A;Phimphasone-Brady P;Ritchie ND;Sajatovic M;Wearner R;Begum A;Carter M;Carrigan T;Clay B;Downey D;Koren R;Trujillo SA;Waxmonsky JA;
{Journal}: J Gen Intern Med
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Jun 28
{Factor}: 6.473
{DOI}: 10.1007/s11606-024-08868-7
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Diabetes self-management education and support can be effectively and efficiently delivered in primary care in the form of shared medical appointments (SMAs). Comparative effectiveness of SMA delivery features such as topic choice, multi-disciplinary care teams, and peer mentor involvement is not known.<BR><B>OBJECTIVE: </B>To compare effects of standardized and patient-driven models of diabetes SMAs on patient-level diabetes outcomes.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>Pragmatic cluster randomized trial.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>A total of 1060 adults with type 2 diabetes in 22 primary care practices.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>Practice personnel delivered the 6-session Targeted Training in Illness Management (TTIM) curriculum using either standardized (set content delivered by a health educator) or patient-driven SMAs (patient-selected topic order delivered by health educators, behavioral health providers [BHPs], and peer mentors).<BR><B>METHODS: </B>Outcomes included self-reported diabetes distress and diabetes self-care behaviors from baseline and follow-up surveys (assessed at 1st and final SMA session), and HbA1c, BMI, and blood pressure from electronic health records. Analyses used descriptive statistics, linear regression, and linear mixed models.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>Both standardized and patient-driven SMAs effectively improved diabetes distress, self-care behaviors, BMI (- 0.29 on average), and HbA1c (- 0.45% (mmol/mol) on average, 8.3 to 7.8%). Controlling for covariates, there was a small, significant effect of condition on overall diabetes distress in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,841) = 4.3, p = .04), attributable to significant effects of condition on emotion and regimen distress subscales. There was a small, significant effect of condition on diastolic blood pressure in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,5199) = 4.50, p = .03). There were no other differences between conditions.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Both SMA models using the TTIM curriculum yielded significant improvement in diabetes distress, self-care, and HbA1c. Patient-driven diabetes SMAs involving BHPs and peer mentors and topic selection did not lead to better clinical or patient-reported outcomes than standardized diabetes SMAs facilitated by a health educator following a set topic order.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>NCT03590041.