Randomized controlled study to evaluate the impact of flexible patient-controlled visits in people with type 1 diabetes: The DiabetesFlex Trial

被引:16
|
作者
Laurberg, Tinne [1 ]
Schougaard, Liv Marit Valen [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Hjollund, Niels Henrik Ingvar [2 ,5 ,6 ]
Lomborg, Kirsten Elisabeth [3 ,4 ,6 ,7 ]
Hansen, Troels Krarup [1 ,6 ]
Jensen, Annesofie Lunde [1 ,3 ,4 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Aarhus Univ Hosp, Steno Diabet Ctr Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
[2] Reg Hosp West Jutland, Ctr Patient Reported Outcomes, AmbuFlex, Ilerning, Denmark
[3] Aarhus Univ, ResCenPI Res Ctr Patient Involvement, Aarhus, Denmark
[4] Cent Denmark Reg, Aarhus, Denmark
[5] Aarhus Univ Hosp, Dept Clin Epidemiol, Aarhus, Denmark
[6] Aarhus Univ, Dept Clin Med, Aarhus, Denmark
[7] Steno Diabet Ctr Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark
关键词
diabetes mellitus type 1; disease management; patient participation; patient-initiated and patient-controlled; patient-reported outcome measures; randomized controlled trial; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; FOLLOW-UP; RHEUMATOID-ARTHRITIS; EFFICACY; DISEASE; CARE;
D O I
10.1111/dme.14791
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Aim The objective of this study was to assess the impact of health care-initiated visits versus patient-controlled flexible visits on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes. Methods The DiabetesFlex trial was a randomized controlled, pragmatic non-inferiority 15-month follow-up study comparing standard care (face-to-face visits every 4 months) with DiabetesFlex (patient-controlled flexible visits using patient-reported, outcome-based telehealth follow-up). Of 343 enrolled participants, 160 in each group completed the study. The primary outcome was mean change in HbA(1c) from baseline to 15-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were blood pressure, lipid levels, frequency of visits, the World Health Organization score-five well-being-index (WHO-5), the Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) scale and experience of participation in own care (participation score). Results The adjusted mean difference in HbA(1c) between standard care and DiabetesFlex was similar and below the predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (-0.03% [95%CI: 0.15, 0.11]/-0.27 mmol/mol [-1.71, 1.16]). No intergroup mean changes in lipid or blood pressure were observed. Conversely, DiabetesFlex participants presented an increased mean WHO-5 index of 4.5 (1.3, 7.3), participation score of 1.1 (0.5, 2.0), and decreased PAID score of -4.8 (-7.1, -2.6) compared with standard care. During follow-up, DiabetesFlex participants actively changed 23% of face-to-face visits to telephone consultations, cancelled more visits (17% vs. 9%), and stayed away without cancellation less often (2% vs. 8%). Conclusion Compared with standard care, flexible patient-controlled visits combined with patient-reported outcomes in participants with metabolic controlled type 1 diabetes and good psychological well-being further improved diabetes-related well-being and decreased face-to-face visits while maintaining safe diabetes management.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled sedation for colonoscopy: Entonox vs modified patient-maintained target-controlled propofol
    Maslekar, S.
    Balaji, P.
    Gardiner, A.
    Culbert, B.
    Monson, J. R. T.
    Duthie, G. S.
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2011, 13 (01) : 48 - 57
  • [32] The impact of supported telemetric monitoring in people with type 2 diabetes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
    Wild, Sarah
    Hanley, Janet
    Lewis, Stephanie
    McKnight, John
    McCloughan, Lucy
    Padfield, Paul
    Paterson, Mary
    Pinnock, Hilary
    McKinstry, Brian
    TRIALS, 2013, 14
  • [33] The impact of supported telemetric monitoring in people with type 2 diabetes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
    Sarah Wild
    Janet Hanley
    Stephanie Lewis
    John McKnight
    Lucy McCloughan
    Paul Padfield
    Mary Paterson
    Hilary Pinnock
    Brian McKinstry
    Trials, 14
  • [34] A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing patient-controlled epidural with intravenous analgesia for pain relief in labor
    Halpern, SH
    Muir, H
    Breen, TW
    Campbell, DC
    Barrett, J
    Liston, R
    Blanchard, JW
    ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2004, 99 (05): : 1532 - 1538
  • [35] Patient-controlled sedation versus intravenous sedation for colonoscopy in elderly patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial
    Lee, DWH
    Chan, ACW
    Sze, TS
    Ko, CW
    Poon, CM
    Chan, KC
    Sin, KS
    Chung, SCS
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2002, 56 (05) : 629 - 632
  • [36] A randomized, controlled trial of postoperative recovery in women receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia compared with patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after major open gynecologic surgery
    Ferguson, S. E.
    Malholtra, T.
    Seshan, V. E.
    Levine, D. A.
    Sonoda, Y.
    Chi, D. S.
    Barakat, R. R.
    Abu-Rustum, N. R.
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2008, 108 (03) : S101 - S102
  • [37] Patient-controlled methylphenidate for cancer fatigue: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial
    Bruera, E
    Valero, V
    Driver, L
    Shen, LR
    Willey, J
    Zhang, T
    Palmer, JL
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2006, 24 (13) : 2073 - 2078
  • [38] Patient-controlled sedation and analgesia, using propofol and alfentanil, during colonoscopy:: A prospective randomized controlled trial
    Roseveare, C
    Seavell, C
    Patel, P
    Críswell, J
    Kimble, J
    Jones, C
    Shepherd, H
    ENDOSCOPY, 1998, 30 (09) : 768 - 773
  • [39] Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of thoracic epidural or patient-controlled opiate analgesia on perioperative quality of life
    Ali, M.
    Winter, D. C.
    Hanly, A. M.
    O'Hagan, C.
    Keaveny, J.
    Broe, P.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2010, 104 (03) : 292 - 297
  • [40] Relaxation music decreases the dose of patient-controlled sedation during colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
    Lee, DWH
    Chan, KW
    Poon, CM
    Ko, CW
    Chan, KH
    Sin, KS
    Sze, TS
    Chan, ACW
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2002, 55 (01) : 33 - 36