Graue M, Igland J, Oftedal BF, Haugstvedt A, Riise HKR, Zoffmann V, Jenum AK, Richards D, Kolltveit BCH. Interprofessional follow-up for people at risk of type 2 diabetes in primary healthcare - a randomized controlled trial with embedded qualitative interviews.
Scand J Prim Health Care 2024;
42:450-462. [PMID:
38588447 PMCID:
PMC11332301 DOI:
10.1080/02813432.2024.2337071]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2023] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/10/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To examine the effects of an empowerment-based interprofessional lifestyle intervention program among people at risk of type 2 diabetes on knowledge, skills, and confidence in self-management, health, psychological well-being, and lifestyle characteristics, and to explore the participants' perceptions of participating in the intervention.
DESIGN AND METHODS
In line with the Medical Research Council complex interventions research methods framework, we conducted a randomized controlled trial with embedded qualitative interviews in primary healthcare clinics in Norway between 2019-2021. Of the patients at risk (The Finnish Diabetes Risk Score Calculator (FINDRISC) ≥15 or Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥30) 142 accepted the invitation, and 14 participants from the intervention group participated in individual interviews after the 12-month follow-up. Our primary outcome was the Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13). Secondary outcomes were EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS, WHO-Overall health, WHO-Overall QOL, weight, height, waist circumference, and regularity of physical activity. We used thematic analysis to analyse the qualitative data.
RESULTS
There was no clinically relevant differences of neither the primary nor the secondary endpoints between intervention and control group. As to the qualitative data, we identified two distinct features: 'Meaningful perspectives on lifestyle changes' and 'Lifestyle change is not a linear process due to challenges faced along the way' putting ownership of their choices in life into picture.
CONCLUSION
The negative results of the RCT stand in contrast to the findings given by the participants voices, perceiving the intervention as a key eye opener placing their health challenges in perspective. How to interpret these seemingly conflicting findings of participants being seen, heard, and understood, helping them to take more conscious ownership of their choices in life, and at the same time demonstrating no improvements in symptoms or measures, is a dilemma that needs further exploration. We should be careful to implement interventions that do not demonstrate any effects on the quantitative outcomes.
Collapse