Community‐based management of complex type 2 diabetes: Adaptation of an integrated model of care in a general practice setting

Author(s):  
Timothy M E Davis ◽  
Jocelyn J Drinkwater ◽  
P Gerry Fegan ◽  
Krishnamurthy Chikkaveerappa ◽  
Brett Sillars ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Pernille Ravn Jakobsen ◽  
Jeanette Reffstrup Christensen ◽  
Jesper Bo Nielsen ◽  
Jens Søndergaard ◽  
Dorte Ejg Jarbøl ◽  
...  

Most type 2 diabetes patients are treated in general practice and there is a need of developing and implementing efficient lifestyle interventions. eHealth interventions have shown to be effective in promoting a healthy lifestyle. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility, including the identification of factors of importance, when offering digital lifestyle coaching to type 2 diabetes patients in general practice. We conducted a qualitative feasibility study with focus group interviews in four general practices. We identified two overall themes and four subthemes: (1) the distribution of roles and lifestyle interventions in general practice (subthemes: external and internal distribution of roles) and (2) the pros and cons for digital lifestyle interventions in general practice (subthemes: access to real life data and change in daily routines). We conclude that for digital lifestyle coaching to be feasible in a general practice setting, it was of great importance that the general practitioners and practice nurses knew the role and content of the intervention. In general, there was a positive attitude in the general practice setting towards referring type 2 diabetes patients to digital lifestyle intervention if it was easy to refer the patients and if easily understandable and accessible feedback was implemented into the electronic health record. It was important that the digital lifestyle intervention was flexible and offered healthcare providers in general practice an opportunity to follow the type 2 diabetes patient closely.


10.36469/9731 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J. Cziraky ◽  
Scott Abbott ◽  
Matt Nguyen ◽  
Kay Larholt ◽  
Elizabeth Apgar ◽  
...  

Background: Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) do not have adequate glycemic control, leading to poor patient outcomes and high healthcare costs. Objective: This prospective pragmatic clinical trial evaluated V-Go, a wearable insulin delivery device, compared with standard treatment optimization (STO) among insulin-treated patients with T2DM in a realworld, community-based practice setting. Methods: Study sites, rather than individual patients, were randomized to V-Go or STO via cluster randomization. Patients were treated according to routine clinical practice and followed up to 4 months. T2DM medications and supplies were purchased utilizing usual insurance and co-pay systems. The primary analysis was an unadjusted treatment group comparison of glycosylated hemoglobinA1c (HbA1c) change from baseline to end of study (EOS). A cost of therapy analysis was completed on patients who had received comparable baseline T2DM treatment with multiple daily basal-bolus insulin injections (MDI). Results: Analysis included 415 patients (169 V-Go, 246 STO) enrolled from 52 US sites. Mean baseline HbA1c (9.6%) was higher in V-Go (9.9%, range 8.0% - 14.2%) than STO (9.3%, range 7.9% - 13.9%, p <.001). HbA1c decreased from baseline to EOS in both V-Go (-1.0%, p<.001) and STO (-0.5%, p<.001); V-Go had significantly larger decrease (p=.002). V-Go had a significant reduction (p<.001) in mean insulin total daily dose (TDD; 0.76 U/kg baseline, 0.57 U/kg EOS), not seen in STO (0.72 U/kg baseline and EOS). The MDI group included 95 (56.2%) V-Go and 113 STO (45.9%) patients. Mean baseline HbA1c was significantly higher in V-Go (9.9%) than STO (9.4%). V-Go also experienced larger decrease in HbA1c from baseline (-1.0%) than STO (-0.36%) (p=.006) with a decrease in TDD, while STO TDD remained unchanged. EOS mean per patient per day cost of diabetes treatment was lower for V-Go ($30.59) vs STO ($32.20) (p=.006). V-Go was more cost effective than STO ($24.02 per 1% drop in HbA1c vs $58.86, respectively). Conclusions: This pragmatic clinical trial demonstrated improved HbA1c levels, lower cost, and decreased insulin dose in patients with T2DM initiating V-Go vs STO in a real-world community-based practice setting. Observed baseline HbAlc indicated use of V-Go in more difficult to manage diabetes patients.


Diabetologia ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony W. Russell ◽  
Maria Donald ◽  
Samantha J. Borg ◽  
Jianzhen Zhang ◽  
Letitia H. Burridge ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Donald ◽  
Claire L. Jackson ◽  
Joshua Byrnes ◽  
Bharat Phani Vaikuntam ◽  
Anthony W. Russell ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document