From Trials to Practice: Implementing a Clinical Intervention in Community Settings.

IF 2.5 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Elizabeth M Vaughan, Xiaoying Yu, Victor J Cardenas, Craig A Johnston, Salim S Virani, Ashok Balasubramanyam, Christie M Ballantyne, Aanand D Naik
{"title":"From Trials to Practice: Implementing a Clinical Intervention in Community Settings.","authors":"Elizabeth M Vaughan, Xiaoying Yu, Victor J Cardenas, Craig A Johnston, Salim S Virani, Ashok Balasubramanyam, Christie M Ballantyne, Aanand D Naik","doi":"10.1177/21501319251339190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction/objectives: </strong>Diabetes increases the risk of complications, especially for vulnerable populations. Our previous randomized clinical trial (RCT), TIME (<u>T</u>elehealth-supported, <u>I</u>ntegrated Community Health Workers (CHWs), <u>M</u>edication access, group visit <u>E</u>ducation), showed the efficacy of CHW-led diabetes care. This study aimed to gather data on transitioning TIME from clinical trials to practical implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a 12-month RCT at a nonprofit community clinic using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants, Hispanic adults without insurance and with type 2 diabetes (N = 58; 29/arm), were randomized to TIME (intervention) or usual care (control). The intervention included monthly group visits and weekly CHW mHealth contact (6 months, Action Phase), followed by quarterly visits and bi-monthly mHealth contact (6 months, Maintenance Phase). The research team provided tele-mentoring to the clinic team throughout the intervention. Outcomes included implementation measures including acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, satisfaction, and effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>The program showed high levels of fidelity (direct observation), adoption (CHW-participant contact: 844 successes of 957 attempts [88.2%]), and feasibility (3.4% attrition). The intervention's net savings was $16,435 ($566/participant). At 6 months, intervention participants had greater HbA1c reductions (-0.85% vs 0.35% [δ = 1.2%]; <i>P</i> = .004; effectiveness) compared to the control. At month 12, more intervention participants improved HbA1c (-0.52% vs 0.25% [δ = 0.8%], <i>P</i> = .062) and preventive care adherence (<i>P</i> < .0001) compared to the control. Surveys revealed high appropriateness (mean = 4.8/5.0 and 5.95/6.0), satisfaction (mean = 4.6/5.0), and acceptability (mean = 4.9/5.0) among providers, CHWs, participants, and stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TIME met key early implementation measures, including strong engagement at both clinic and participant levels, while demonstrating cost savings and significant clinical improvements. These results support the transition of TIME from efficacy trials to practical, community-based diabetes care. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":46723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","volume":"16 ","pages":"21501319251339190"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12106995/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319251339190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction/objectives: Diabetes increases the risk of complications, especially for vulnerable populations. Our previous randomized clinical trial (RCT), TIME (Telehealth-supported, Integrated Community Health Workers (CHWs), Medication access, group visit Education), showed the efficacy of CHW-led diabetes care. This study aimed to gather data on transitioning TIME from clinical trials to practical implementation.

Methods: We conducted a 12-month RCT at a nonprofit community clinic using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants, Hispanic adults without insurance and with type 2 diabetes (N = 58; 29/arm), were randomized to TIME (intervention) or usual care (control). The intervention included monthly group visits and weekly CHW mHealth contact (6 months, Action Phase), followed by quarterly visits and bi-monthly mHealth contact (6 months, Maintenance Phase). The research team provided tele-mentoring to the clinic team throughout the intervention. Outcomes included implementation measures including acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, satisfaction, and effectiveness.

Key results: The program showed high levels of fidelity (direct observation), adoption (CHW-participant contact: 844 successes of 957 attempts [88.2%]), and feasibility (3.4% attrition). The intervention's net savings was $16,435 ($566/participant). At 6 months, intervention participants had greater HbA1c reductions (-0.85% vs 0.35% [δ = 1.2%]; P = .004; effectiveness) compared to the control. At month 12, more intervention participants improved HbA1c (-0.52% vs 0.25% [δ = 0.8%], P = .062) and preventive care adherence (P < .0001) compared to the control. Surveys revealed high appropriateness (mean = 4.8/5.0 and 5.95/6.0), satisfaction (mean = 4.6/5.0), and acceptability (mean = 4.9/5.0) among providers, CHWs, participants, and stakeholders.

Conclusions: TIME met key early implementation measures, including strong engagement at both clinic and participant levels, while demonstrating cost savings and significant clinical improvements. These results support the transition of TIME from efficacy trials to practical, community-based diabetes care. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate these findings.

从试验到实践:在社区环境中实施临床干预。
前言/目标:糖尿病增加了并发症的风险,特别是对弱势人群。我们之前的随机临床试验TIME(远程医疗支持、综合社区卫生工作者(CHWs)、药物获取、团体访问教育)显示了chw主导的糖尿病护理的有效性。本研究旨在收集将TIME从临床试验过渡到实际实施的数据。方法:我们采用实施研究综合框架(CFIR)在一家非营利性社区诊所进行了为期12个月的随机对照试验。参与者:无保险且患有2型糖尿病的西班牙裔成年人(N = 58;29名/组),随机分为定时治疗组(干预组)和常规治疗组(对照组)。干预包括每月小组访问和每周CHW移动健康联系(6个月,行动阶段),随后是季度访问和双月移动健康联系(6个月,维护阶段)。研究小组在整个干预过程中为临床小组提供远程指导。结果包括实施措施,包括可接受性、采用率、适当性、成本、可行性、保真度、满意度和有效性。关键结果:该计划显示出高水平的保真度(直接观察),采用(chw参与者接触:957次尝试中有844次成功[88.2%])和可行性(3.4%的流失率)。干预的净节省额为16,435美元(每位参与者566美元)。在6个月时,干预参与者的HbA1c降低幅度更大(-0.85% vs 0.35% [δ = 1.2%];p = .004;有效性)与对照组相比。在第12个月,更多的干预参与者改善了HbA1c (-0.52% vs 0.25% [δ = 0.8%], P = 0.062)和预防保健依从性(P结论:TIME达到了关键的早期实施措施,包括在诊所和参与者层面的强烈参与,同时显示了成本节约和显着的临床改善。这些结果支持TIME从疗效试验向实际的、基于社区的糖尿病护理的转变。需要更大规模的研究来进一步评估这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
183
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信