2型糖尿病自我护理支持干预试验的随机分组前退出与缺乏可用的支持人员共同参与者有关。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
McKenzie K Roddy, Merna El-Rifai, Lauren LeStourgeon, James E Aikens, Ruth Q Wolever, Robert A Greevy, Lindsay S Mayberry
{"title":"2型糖尿病自我护理支持干预试验的随机分组前退出与缺乏可用的支持人员共同参与者有关。","authors":"McKenzie K Roddy, Merna El-Rifai, Lauren LeStourgeon, James E Aikens, Ruth Q Wolever, Robert A Greevy, Lindsay S Mayberry","doi":"10.1177/17423953231203734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Dyadic interventions, involving two persons with a preexisting close relationship, offer the opportunity to activate support persons (SPs) to improve health for adults with chronic conditions. Requiring SP coparticipation can challenge recruitment and bias samples; however, the associations between voluntary SP coparticipation and recruitment outcomes across patient characteristics are unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Family/Friend Activation to Motivate Self-care 2.0 randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolled adults with Type 2 diabetes (T2D) from an academic health system. Participants were asked-but not required-to invite an SP to coenroll. Using data from the electronic health record we sought to describe RCT enrollment in the setting of voluntary SP coparticipation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In a diverse sample of adults with (T2D) (48% female, 44% minoritized race/ethnicity), most participants (91%) invited SPs and (89%) enrolled with SPs. However, prerandomization withdrawal was significantly higher among participants who did not have consenting SPs than those who did. Females were less likely to invite SPs than males and more Black PWD were prerandomization withdrawals than randomized.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Voluntary SP coenrollment may benefit recruitment for dyadic sampling; however, more research is needed to understand if these methods systematically bias sampling and to prevent these unintended biases.</p>","PeriodicalId":48530,"journal":{"name":"Chronic Illness","volume":" ","pages":"17423953231203734"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10963338/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prerandomization withdrawals from a Type 2 diabetes self-care support intervention trial are associated with lack of available support person coparticipant.\",\"authors\":\"McKenzie K Roddy, Merna El-Rifai, Lauren LeStourgeon, James E Aikens, Ruth Q Wolever, Robert A Greevy, Lindsay S Mayberry\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17423953231203734\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Dyadic interventions, involving two persons with a preexisting close relationship, offer the opportunity to activate support persons (SPs) to improve health for adults with chronic conditions. Requiring SP coparticipation can challenge recruitment and bias samples; however, the associations between voluntary SP coparticipation and recruitment outcomes across patient characteristics are unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Family/Friend Activation to Motivate Self-care 2.0 randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolled adults with Type 2 diabetes (T2D) from an academic health system. Participants were asked-but not required-to invite an SP to coenroll. Using data from the electronic health record we sought to describe RCT enrollment in the setting of voluntary SP coparticipation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In a diverse sample of adults with (T2D) (48% female, 44% minoritized race/ethnicity), most participants (91%) invited SPs and (89%) enrolled with SPs. However, prerandomization withdrawal was significantly higher among participants who did not have consenting SPs than those who did. Females were less likely to invite SPs than males and more Black PWD were prerandomization withdrawals than randomized.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Voluntary SP coenrollment may benefit recruitment for dyadic sampling; however, more research is needed to understand if these methods systematically bias sampling and to prevent these unintended biases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48530,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chronic Illness\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"17423953231203734\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10963338/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chronic Illness\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17423953231203734\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronic Illness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17423953231203734","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:涉及两名已有密切关系的人的双相干预措施,为激活支持人员(SP)提供了机会,以改善患有慢性病的成年人的健康状况。要求SP共同参与可能会挑战招募和偏见样本;然而,自愿SP参与与患者特征的招募结果之间的关联尚不清楚。方法:家庭/朋友激活以激励自我护理2.0随机对照试验(RCT)招募了来自学术健康系统的2型糖尿病(T2D)成年人。参与者被要求但不要求邀请SP参加共同投票。利用电子健康记录中的数据,我们试图描述随机对照试验在SP自愿参与的情况下的注册情况。结果:在患有(T2D)的成人(48%为女性,44%为少数种族/民族)的不同样本中,大多数参与者(91%)邀请SP,(89%)加入SP。然而,在没有同意SP的参与者中,随机化前的戒断症状明显高于同意SP的人。女性比男性更不可能邀请SP,更多的黑人PWD是随机分组前退出的。讨论:自愿SP联合招募可能有利于二元抽样的招募;然而,还需要更多的研究来了解这些方法是否系统地偏向采样,并防止这些意外的偏向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prerandomization withdrawals from a Type 2 diabetes self-care support intervention trial are associated with lack of available support person coparticipant.

Objectives: Dyadic interventions, involving two persons with a preexisting close relationship, offer the opportunity to activate support persons (SPs) to improve health for adults with chronic conditions. Requiring SP coparticipation can challenge recruitment and bias samples; however, the associations between voluntary SP coparticipation and recruitment outcomes across patient characteristics are unknown.

Methods: The Family/Friend Activation to Motivate Self-care 2.0 randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolled adults with Type 2 diabetes (T2D) from an academic health system. Participants were asked-but not required-to invite an SP to coenroll. Using data from the electronic health record we sought to describe RCT enrollment in the setting of voluntary SP coparticipation.

Results: In a diverse sample of adults with (T2D) (48% female, 44% minoritized race/ethnicity), most participants (91%) invited SPs and (89%) enrolled with SPs. However, prerandomization withdrawal was significantly higher among participants who did not have consenting SPs than those who did. Females were less likely to invite SPs than males and more Black PWD were prerandomization withdrawals than randomized.

Discussion: Voluntary SP coenrollment may benefit recruitment for dyadic sampling; however, more research is needed to understand if these methods systematically bias sampling and to prevent these unintended biases.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Chronic Illness
Chronic Illness Multiple-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Chronic illnesses are prolonged, do not resolve spontaneously, and are rarely completely cured. The most common are cardiovascular diseases (hypertension, coronary artery disease, stroke and heart failure), the arthritides, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and epilepsy. There is increasing evidence that mental illnesses such as depression are best understood as chronic health problems. HIV/AIDS has become a chronic condition in those countries where effective medication is available.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信