基于网络的2型糖尿病患者自我管理项目:帮助糖尿病研究项目,包括随机对照试验

Q4 Medicine
E. Murray, J. Ross, K. Pal, Jinshuo Li, C. Dack, F. Stevenson, M. Sweeting, S. Parrott, M. Barnard, L. Yardley, S. Michie, C. May, D. Patterson, G. Alkhaldi, B. Fisher, A. Farmer, O. O’Donnell
{"title":"基于网络的2型糖尿病患者自我管理项目:帮助糖尿病研究项目,包括随机对照试验","authors":"E. Murray, J. Ross, K. Pal, Jinshuo Li, C. Dack, F. Stevenson, M. Sweeting, S. Parrott, M. Barnard, L. Yardley, S. Michie, C. May, D. Patterson, G. Alkhaldi, B. Fisher, A. Farmer, O. O’Donnell","doi":"10.3310/PGFAR06050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n In the UK, 6% of the UK population have diabetes mellitus, 90% of whom have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Diabetes mellitus accounts for 10% of NHS expenditure (£14B annually). Good self-management may improve health outcomes. NHS policy is to refer all people with T2DM to structured education, on diagnosis, to improve their self-management skills, with annual reinforcement thereafter. However, uptake remains low (5.6% in 2014–15). Almost all structured education is group based, which may not suit people who work, who have family or other caring commitments or who simply do not like group-based formats. Moreover, patient needs vary with time and a single education session at diagnosis is unlikely to meet these evolving needs. A web-based programme may increase uptake.\n \n \n \n Our aim was to develop, evaluate and implement a web-based self-management programme for people with T2DM at any stage of their illness journey, with the goal of improving access to, and uptake of, self-management support, thereby improving health outcomes in a cost-effective manner. Specific objectives were to (1) develop an evidence-based theoretically informed programme that was acceptable to patients and health-care professionals (HCPs) and that could be readily implemented within routine NHS care, (2) determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the programme compared with usual care and (3) determine how best to integrate the programme into routine care.\n \n \n \n There were five linked work packages (WPs). WP A determined patient requirements and WP B determined HCP requirements for the self-management programme. WP C developed and user-tested the Healthy Living for People with type 2 Diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes) programme. WP D was an individually randomised controlled trial in primary care with a health economic analysis. WP E used a mixed-methods and case-study design to study the potential for implementing the HeLP-Diabetes programme within routine NHS practice.\n \n \n \n English primary care.\n \n \n \n People with T2DM (WPs A, D and E) or HCPs caring for people with T2DM (WPs B, C and E).\n \n \n \n The HeLP-Diabetes programme; an evidence-based theoretically informed web-based self-management programme for people with T2DM at all stages of their illness journey, developed using participatory design principles.\n \n \n \n WPs A and B provided data on user ‘wants and needs’, including factors that would improve the uptake and accessibility of the HeLP-Diabetes programme. The outcome for WP C was the HeLP-Diabetes programme itself. The trial (WP D) had two outcomes measures: glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level and diabetes mellitus-related distress, as measured with the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale. The implementation outcomes (WP E) were the adoption and uptake at clinical commissioning group, general practice and patient levels and the identification of key barriers and facilitators.\n \n \n \n Data from WPs A and B supported our holistic approach and addressed all areas of self-management (medical, emotional and role management). HCPs voiced concerns about linkage with the electronic medical records (EMRs) and supporting patients to use the programme. The HeLP-Diabetes programme was developed and user-tested in WP C. The trial (WP D) recruited to target (n = 374), achieved follow-up rates of over 80% and the intention-to-treat analysis showed that there was an additional improvement in HbA1c levels at 12 months in the intervention group [mean difference –0.24%, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.44% to –0.049%]. There was no difference in overall PAID score levels (mean difference –1.5 points, 95% CI –3.9 to 0.9 points). The within-trial health economic analysis found that incremental costs were lower in the intervention group than in the control group (mean difference –£111, 95% CI –£384 to £136) and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher (mean difference 0.02 QALYs, 95% CI 0.000 to 0.044 QALYs), meaning that the HeLP-Diabetes programme group dominated the control group. In WP E, we found that the HeLP-Diabetes programme could be successfully implemented in primary care. General practices that supported people in registering for the HeLP-Diabetes programme had better uptake and registered patients from a wider demographic than those relying on patient self-registration. Some HCPs were reluctant to do this, as they did not see it as part of their professional role.\n \n \n \n We were unable to link the HeLP-Diabetes programme with the EMRs or to determine the effects of the HeLP-Diabetes programme on users in the implementation study.\n \n \n \n The HeLP-Diabetes programme is an effective self-management support programme that is implementable in primary care.\n \n \n \n The HeLP-Diabetes research team will explore the following in future work: research to determine how to improve patient uptake of self-management support; develop and evaluate a structured digital educational pathway for newly diagnosed people; develop and evaluate a digital T2DM prevention programme; and the national implementation of the HeLP-Diabetes programme.\n \n \n \n Research Ethics Committee reference number 10/H0722/86 for WPs A–C; Research Ethics Committee reference number 12/LO/1571 and UK Clinical Research Network/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio 13563 for WP D; and Research Ethics Committee 13/EM/0033 for WP E. In addition, for WP D, the study was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register as reference number ISRCTN02123133.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 6, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32307,"journal":{"name":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A web-based self-management programme for people with type 2 diabetes: the HeLP-Diabetes research programme including RCT\",\"authors\":\"E. Murray, J. Ross, K. Pal, Jinshuo Li, C. Dack, F. Stevenson, M. Sweeting, S. Parrott, M. Barnard, L. Yardley, S. Michie, C. May, D. Patterson, G. Alkhaldi, B. Fisher, A. Farmer, O. O’Donnell\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/PGFAR06050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n In the UK, 6% of the UK population have diabetes mellitus, 90% of whom have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Diabetes mellitus accounts for 10% of NHS expenditure (£14B annually). Good self-management may improve health outcomes. NHS policy is to refer all people with T2DM to structured education, on diagnosis, to improve their self-management skills, with annual reinforcement thereafter. However, uptake remains low (5.6% in 2014–15). Almost all structured education is group based, which may not suit people who work, who have family or other caring commitments or who simply do not like group-based formats. Moreover, patient needs vary with time and a single education session at diagnosis is unlikely to meet these evolving needs. A web-based programme may increase uptake.\\n \\n \\n \\n Our aim was to develop, evaluate and implement a web-based self-management programme for people with T2DM at any stage of their illness journey, with the goal of improving access to, and uptake of, self-management support, thereby improving health outcomes in a cost-effective manner. Specific objectives were to (1) develop an evidence-based theoretically informed programme that was acceptable to patients and health-care professionals (HCPs) and that could be readily implemented within routine NHS care, (2) determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the programme compared with usual care and (3) determine how best to integrate the programme into routine care.\\n \\n \\n \\n There were five linked work packages (WPs). WP A determined patient requirements and WP B determined HCP requirements for the self-management programme. WP C developed and user-tested the Healthy Living for People with type 2 Diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes) programme. WP D was an individually randomised controlled trial in primary care with a health economic analysis. WP E used a mixed-methods and case-study design to study the potential for implementing the HeLP-Diabetes programme within routine NHS practice.\\n \\n \\n \\n English primary care.\\n \\n \\n \\n People with T2DM (WPs A, D and E) or HCPs caring for people with T2DM (WPs B, C and E).\\n \\n \\n \\n The HeLP-Diabetes programme; an evidence-based theoretically informed web-based self-management programme for people with T2DM at all stages of their illness journey, developed using participatory design principles.\\n \\n \\n \\n WPs A and B provided data on user ‘wants and needs’, including factors that would improve the uptake and accessibility of the HeLP-Diabetes programme. The outcome for WP C was the HeLP-Diabetes programme itself. The trial (WP D) had two outcomes measures: glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level and diabetes mellitus-related distress, as measured with the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale. The implementation outcomes (WP E) were the adoption and uptake at clinical commissioning group, general practice and patient levels and the identification of key barriers and facilitators.\\n \\n \\n \\n Data from WPs A and B supported our holistic approach and addressed all areas of self-management (medical, emotional and role management). HCPs voiced concerns about linkage with the electronic medical records (EMRs) and supporting patients to use the programme. The HeLP-Diabetes programme was developed and user-tested in WP C. The trial (WP D) recruited to target (n = 374), achieved follow-up rates of over 80% and the intention-to-treat analysis showed that there was an additional improvement in HbA1c levels at 12 months in the intervention group [mean difference –0.24%, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.44% to –0.049%]. There was no difference in overall PAID score levels (mean difference –1.5 points, 95% CI –3.9 to 0.9 points). The within-trial health economic analysis found that incremental costs were lower in the intervention group than in the control group (mean difference –£111, 95% CI –£384 to £136) and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher (mean difference 0.02 QALYs, 95% CI 0.000 to 0.044 QALYs), meaning that the HeLP-Diabetes programme group dominated the control group. In WP E, we found that the HeLP-Diabetes programme could be successfully implemented in primary care. General practices that supported people in registering for the HeLP-Diabetes programme had better uptake and registered patients from a wider demographic than those relying on patient self-registration. Some HCPs were reluctant to do this, as they did not see it as part of their professional role.\\n \\n \\n \\n We were unable to link the HeLP-Diabetes programme with the EMRs or to determine the effects of the HeLP-Diabetes programme on users in the implementation study.\\n \\n \\n \\n The HeLP-Diabetes programme is an effective self-management support programme that is implementable in primary care.\\n \\n \\n \\n The HeLP-Diabetes research team will explore the following in future work: research to determine how to improve patient uptake of self-management support; develop and evaluate a structured digital educational pathway for newly diagnosed people; develop and evaluate a digital T2DM prevention programme; and the national implementation of the HeLP-Diabetes programme.\\n \\n \\n \\n Research Ethics Committee reference number 10/H0722/86 for WPs A–C; Research Ethics Committee reference number 12/LO/1571 and UK Clinical Research Network/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio 13563 for WP D; and Research Ethics Committee 13/EM/0033 for WP E. In addition, for WP D, the study was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register as reference number ISRCTN02123133.\\n \\n \\n \\n This project was funded by the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 6, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":32307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Programme Grants for Applied Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Programme Grants for Applied Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/PGFAR06050\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/PGFAR06050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

在英国,6%的英国人口患有糖尿病,其中90%患有2型糖尿病(T2DM)。糖尿病占NHS支出的10%(每年140亿英镑)。良好的自我管理可以改善健康状况。国民健康保险制度的政策是,所有T2DM患者在诊断时接受结构化教育,以提高他们的自我管理技能,此后每年加强教育。然而,使用率仍然很低(2014 - 2015年为5.6%)。几乎所有的结构化教育都是以团体为基础的,这可能不适合那些工作的人,那些有家庭或其他照顾承诺的人,或者那些根本不喜欢以团体为基础的教育形式的人。此外,患者的需求随时间而变化,诊断时的单一教育课程不太可能满足这些不断变化的需求。基于网络的课程可能会增加吸收。我们的目的是开发、评估和实施一个基于网络的T2DM患者病程任何阶段的自我管理方案,目的是改善自我管理支持的获取和吸收,从而以具有成本效益的方式改善健康结果。具体目标是:(1)制定一个以证据为基础的理论知情方案,该方案为患者和卫生保健专业人员(HCPs)所接受,并且可以在常规NHS护理中容易实施;(2)确定该方案与常规护理相比的临床效果和成本效益;(3)确定如何最好地将该方案纳入常规护理。有五个相互联系的工作包。WP A确定患者要求,WP B确定自我管理方案的HCP要求。WP C开发并用户测试了2型糖尿病患者健康生活(HeLP-Diabetes)计划。WP D是一项针对初级保健的个体随机对照试验,并进行了卫生经济分析。WP E使用混合方法和案例研究设计来研究在常规NHS实践中实施帮助糖尿病计划的潜力。英国初级保健。2型糖尿病患者(WPs A、D和E)或照顾2型糖尿病患者(WPs B、C和E)的医护人员。采用参与式设计原则,为T2DM患者在患病过程的所有阶段制定了基于证据的、有理论依据的、基于网络的自我管理规划。WPs A和WPs B提供了关于用户“想要和需要”的数据,包括有助于提高“帮助糖尿病”规划的接受度和可及性的因素。WP - C的结果是帮助糖尿病项目本身。试验(WP D)有两个结局指标:糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)水平和糖尿病相关窘迫,用糖尿病问题区(PAID)量表测量。实施结果(WP E)是临床调试组、一般实践和患者层面的采用和吸收,以及关键障碍和促进因素的确定。来自WPs A和B的数据支持我们的整体方法,并解决了自我管理的所有领域(医疗、情感和角色管理)。医护人员对与电子医疗记录(EMRs)的联系以及支持患者使用该计划表示关注。该试验(WP D)纳入目标(n = 374),随访率超过80%,意向治疗分析显示,干预组在12个月时HbA1c水平有进一步改善[平均差异-0.24%,95%置信区间(CI) -0.44%至-0.049%]。总体PAID评分水平无差异(平均差异-1.5分,95% CI -3.9至0.9分)。试验内健康经济分析发现,干预组的增量成本低于对照组(平均差值为111英镑,95% CI为384英镑至136英镑),质量调整生命年(QALYs)更高(平均差值为0.02英镑,95% CI为0.000至0.044英镑),这意味着帮助糖尿病计划组在对照组中占主导地位。在WP E中,我们发现帮助糖尿病项目可以在初级保健中成功实施。支持人们注册帮助糖尿病项目的一般做法比那些依赖患者自我注册的做法更好地从更广泛的人群中吸收和注册患者。一些医护人员不愿意这样做,因为他们不认为这是他们职业角色的一部分。在实施研究中,我们无法将帮助糖尿病计划与电子病历联系起来,也无法确定帮助糖尿病计划对使用者的影响。帮助糖尿病规划是一项有效的自我管理支持规划,可在初级保健中实施。 HeLP-Diabetes研究团队将在未来的工作中探索以下内容:研究如何提高患者对自我管理支持的吸收;为新诊断的患者开发和评估结构化的数字教育途径;制定和评估数字2型糖尿病预防规划;以及全国实施帮助糖尿病方案。研究伦理委员会WPs A-C参考编号10/H0722/86;研究伦理委员会参考编号12/LO/1571和联合王国临床研究网络/国家卫生研究所(NIHR) 13563的WP D组合;此外,对于WP D,该研究已在国际标准随机对照试验注册中注册,参考编号为ISRCTN02123133。该项目由国家卫生研究院应用研究计划资助,将全文发表在应用研究计划资助上;第6卷第5期请参阅NIHR期刊图书馆网站了解更多项目信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A web-based self-management programme for people with type 2 diabetes: the HeLP-Diabetes research programme including RCT
In the UK, 6% of the UK population have diabetes mellitus, 90% of whom have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Diabetes mellitus accounts for 10% of NHS expenditure (£14B annually). Good self-management may improve health outcomes. NHS policy is to refer all people with T2DM to structured education, on diagnosis, to improve their self-management skills, with annual reinforcement thereafter. However, uptake remains low (5.6% in 2014–15). Almost all structured education is group based, which may not suit people who work, who have family or other caring commitments or who simply do not like group-based formats. Moreover, patient needs vary with time and a single education session at diagnosis is unlikely to meet these evolving needs. A web-based programme may increase uptake. Our aim was to develop, evaluate and implement a web-based self-management programme for people with T2DM at any stage of their illness journey, with the goal of improving access to, and uptake of, self-management support, thereby improving health outcomes in a cost-effective manner. Specific objectives were to (1) develop an evidence-based theoretically informed programme that was acceptable to patients and health-care professionals (HCPs) and that could be readily implemented within routine NHS care, (2) determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the programme compared with usual care and (3) determine how best to integrate the programme into routine care. There were five linked work packages (WPs). WP A determined patient requirements and WP B determined HCP requirements for the self-management programme. WP C developed and user-tested the Healthy Living for People with type 2 Diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes) programme. WP D was an individually randomised controlled trial in primary care with a health economic analysis. WP E used a mixed-methods and case-study design to study the potential for implementing the HeLP-Diabetes programme within routine NHS practice. English primary care. People with T2DM (WPs A, D and E) or HCPs caring for people with T2DM (WPs B, C and E). The HeLP-Diabetes programme; an evidence-based theoretically informed web-based self-management programme for people with T2DM at all stages of their illness journey, developed using participatory design principles. WPs A and B provided data on user ‘wants and needs’, including factors that would improve the uptake and accessibility of the HeLP-Diabetes programme. The outcome for WP C was the HeLP-Diabetes programme itself. The trial (WP D) had two outcomes measures: glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level and diabetes mellitus-related distress, as measured with the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale. The implementation outcomes (WP E) were the adoption and uptake at clinical commissioning group, general practice and patient levels and the identification of key barriers and facilitators. Data from WPs A and B supported our holistic approach and addressed all areas of self-management (medical, emotional and role management). HCPs voiced concerns about linkage with the electronic medical records (EMRs) and supporting patients to use the programme. The HeLP-Diabetes programme was developed and user-tested in WP C. The trial (WP D) recruited to target (n = 374), achieved follow-up rates of over 80% and the intention-to-treat analysis showed that there was an additional improvement in HbA1c levels at 12 months in the intervention group [mean difference –0.24%, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.44% to –0.049%]. There was no difference in overall PAID score levels (mean difference –1.5 points, 95% CI –3.9 to 0.9 points). The within-trial health economic analysis found that incremental costs were lower in the intervention group than in the control group (mean difference –£111, 95% CI –£384 to £136) and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher (mean difference 0.02 QALYs, 95% CI 0.000 to 0.044 QALYs), meaning that the HeLP-Diabetes programme group dominated the control group. In WP E, we found that the HeLP-Diabetes programme could be successfully implemented in primary care. General practices that supported people in registering for the HeLP-Diabetes programme had better uptake and registered patients from a wider demographic than those relying on patient self-registration. Some HCPs were reluctant to do this, as they did not see it as part of their professional role. We were unable to link the HeLP-Diabetes programme with the EMRs or to determine the effects of the HeLP-Diabetes programme on users in the implementation study. The HeLP-Diabetes programme is an effective self-management support programme that is implementable in primary care. The HeLP-Diabetes research team will explore the following in future work: research to determine how to improve patient uptake of self-management support; develop and evaluate a structured digital educational pathway for newly diagnosed people; develop and evaluate a digital T2DM prevention programme; and the national implementation of the HeLP-Diabetes programme. Research Ethics Committee reference number 10/H0722/86 for WPs A–C; Research Ethics Committee reference number 12/LO/1571 and UK Clinical Research Network/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio 13563 for WP D; and Research Ethics Committee 13/EM/0033 for WP E. In addition, for WP D, the study was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register as reference number ISRCTN02123133. This project was funded by the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 6, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
53 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信