Randomized controlled feasibility trial of supported self-management in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus and an intellectual disability: OK Diabetes

Lifestyle modification interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities: systematic review and meta-analysis at intervention and component levels

BACKGROUND

Adults with intellectual disabilities (IDs) are susceptible to multiple health risk behaviours such as alcohol consumption, smoking, low physical activity, sedentary behaviour and poor diet. Lifestyle modification interventions can prevent or reduce negative health consequences caused by these behaviours. We aim to determine the effectiveness of lifestyle modification interventions and their components in targeting health risk behaviours in adults with IDs.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Electronic databases, clinical trial registries, grey literature and citations of systematic reviews and included studies were searched in January 2021 (updated February 2022). Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials targeting alcohol consumption, smoking, low physical activity, sedentary behaviours and poor diet in adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with ID were included. Meta-analysis was conducted at the intervention level (pairwise and network meta-analysis) and the component-level (component network meta-analysis). Studies were coded using Michie's 19-item theory coding scheme and 94-item behaviour change taxonomies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) Version 2 and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). The study involved a patient and public involvement (PPI) group, including people with lived experience, who contributed extensively by shaping the methodology, providing valuable insights in interpreting results and organising of dissemination events.

RESULTS

Our literature search identified 12 180 articles, of which 80 studies with 4805 participants were included in the review. The complexity of lifestyle modification intervention was dismantled by identifying six core components that influenced outcomes. Interventions targeting single or multiple health risk behaviours could have a single or combination of multiple core-components. Interventions (2 RCTS; 4 non-RCTs; 228 participants) targeting alcohol consumption and smoking behaviour were effective but based on limited evidence. Similarly, interventions targeting low physical activity only (16 RCTs; 17 non-RCTs; 1413 participants) or multiple behaviours (low physical activity only, sedentary behaviours and poor diet) (17 RCTs; 24 non-RCTs; 3164 participants) yielded mixed effectiveness in outcomes. Most interventions targeting low physical activity only or multiple behaviours generated positive effects on various outcomes while some interventions led to no change or worsened outcomes, which could be attributed to the presence of a single core-component or a combination of similar core components in interventions. The intervention-level meta-analysis for weight management outcomes showed that none of the interventions were associated with a statistically significant change in outcomes when compared with treatment-as-usual and each other. Interventions with core-components combination of energy deficit diet, aerobic exercise and behaviour change techniques showed the highest weight loss [mean difference (MD) = -3.61, 95% credible interval (CrI) -9.68 to 1.95] and those with core-components combination dietary advice and aerobic exercise showed a weight gain (MD 0.94, 95% CrI -3.93 to 4.91). Similar findings were found with the component network meta-analysis for which additional components were identified. Most studies had a high and moderate risk of bias. Various theories and behaviour change techniques were used in intervention development and adaptation.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review is the first to comprehensively explore lifestyle modification interventions targeting a range of single and multiple health risk behaviours in adults with ID, co-produced with people with lived experience. It has practical implications for future research as it highlights the importance of mixed-methods research in understanding lifestyle modification interventions and the need for population-specific improvements in the field (e.g., tailored interventions, development of evaluation instruments or tools, use of rigorous research methodologies and comprehensive reporting frameworks). Wide dissemination of related knowledge and the involvement of PPI groups, including people with lived experience, will help future researchers design interventions that consider the unique needs, desires and abilities of people with ID.

Reporting dose in complex self-management support interventions for long-term conditions: is it defined by researchers and received by participants? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The minimum clinically effective dose, and whether this is received in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex self-management interventions in long-term conditions (LTCs), can be unclear. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist states that dose should be clearly reported to ensure validity and reliable implementation.

OBJECTIVES

To identify whether the expected minimum clinically effective dose, and the dose participants received is reported within research articles and if reporting has improved since the TIDieR checklist was published.

METHODS

Four databases were systematically searched (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, AMED and CINAHL) to identify published reports between 2008 and 2022 for RCTs investigating complex self-management interventions in LTCs. Data on reporting of dose were extracted and synthesised from the eligible articles.

RESULTS

94 articles covering various LTCs including diabetes, stroke and arthritis were included. Most complex interventions involved behaviour change combined with education and/or exercise. The maximum dose was usually reported (n=90; 97.8%), but the expected minimum clinically effective dose and the dose received were reported in only 28 (30.4%) and 62 (67.4%) articles, respectively. Reporting of the expected minimum clinically effective dose and the dose participants received did not improve following the publication of the TIDieR checklist in 2014.

CONCLUSIONS

Interpreting results and implementing effective complex self-management interventions is difficult when researchers' reporting of dose is not in line with guidelines. If trial findings indicate benefit from the intervention, clear reporting of dose ensures reliable implementation to standard care. If the results are non-significant, detailed reporting enables better interpretation of results, that is, differentiating between poor implementation and lack of effectiveness. This ensures quality of interventions and validity and generalisability of trial findings. Therefore, wider adoption of reporting the TIDieR checklist dose aspects is strongly recommended. Alternatively, customised guidelines for reporting dose in complex self-management interventions could be developed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020180988.

Managing with Learning Disability and Diabetes: OK-Diabetes - a case-finding study and feasibility randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Obesity and type 2 diabetes are common in adults with a learning disability. It is not known if the principles of self-management can be applied in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and evaluate a case-finding method and undertake an observational study of adults with a learning disability and type 2 diabetes, to develop a standardised supported self-management (SSM) intervention and measure of adherence and to undertake a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of SSM versus treatment as usual (TAU).

DESIGN

Observational study and an individually randomised feasibility RCT.

SETTING

Three cities in West Yorkshire, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

In the observational study: adults aged > 18 years with a mild or moderate learning disability, who have type 2 diabetes that is not being treated with insulin and who are living in the community. Participants had mental capacity to consent to research and to the intervention. In the RCT participants had glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels of > 6.5% (48 mmol/mol), a body mass index (BMI) of > 25 kg/m² or self-reported physical activity below national guideline levels.

INTERVENTIONS

Standardised SSM. TAU supported by an easy-read booklet.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) The number of eligible participants identified and sources of referral; (2) current living and support arrangements; (3) current health state, including level of HbA_1c, BMI and waist circumference, blood pressure and lipids; (4) mood, preferences for change; (5) recruitment and retention in RCT; (6) implementation and adherence to the intervention; (7) completeness of data collection and values for candidate primary outcomes; and (8) qualitative data on participant experience of the research process and intervention.

RESULTS

In the observational study we identified 147 eligible consenting participants. The mean age was 54.4 years. In total, 130 out of 147 (88%) named a key supporter, with 113 supporters (77%) being involved in diabetes management. The mean HbA_1c level was 54.5 mmol/mol [standard deviation (SD) 14.8 mmol/mol; 7.1%, SD 1.4%]. The BMI of 65% of participants was > 30 kg/m² and of 21% was > 40 kg/m². Many participants reported low mood, dissatisfaction with lifestyle and diabetes management and an interest in change. Non-response rates were high (45/147, 31%) for medical data requested from the primary care team. In the RCT, 82 participants were randomised. The mean baseline HbA_1c level was 56 mmol/mol (SD 16.5 mmol/mol; 7.3%, SD 1.5%) and the mean BMI was 34 kg/m² (SD 7.6 kg/m²). All SSM sessions were completed by 35 out of 41 participants. The adherence measure was obtained in 37 out of 41 participants. The follow-up HbA_1c level and BMI was obtained for 75 out of 82 (91%) and 77 out of 82 (94%) participants, respectively. Most participants reported a positive experience of the intervention. A low response rate and difficulty understanding the EuroQol-5 Dimensions were challenges in obtaining data for an economic analysis.

LIMITATIONS

We recruited from only 60% of eligible general practices, and 90% of participants were on a general practice learning disability register, which meant that we did not recruit many participants from the wider population with milder learning disability.

CONCLUSIONS

A definitive RCT is feasible and would need to recruit 194 participants per arm. The main barrier is the resource-intensive nature of recruitment. Future research is needed into the effectiveness of obesity treatments in this population, particularly estimating the longer-term outcomes that are important for health benefit. Research is also needed into improving ways of assessing quality of life in adults with a learning disability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The feasibility of using the EQ-5D-3L with adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities within a randomized control trial: a qualitative evaluation

Background

In trials incorporating a health economic evaluation component, reliable validated measures for health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are essential. The EQ-5D is the preferred measure for cost-effectiveness analysis in UK trials. This paper presents a qualitative evaluation of the use of the EQ-5D-3L in a feasibility randomised control trial with participants who had a mild- to  moderate learning disability and type 2 diabetes.

Methods

Researchers administered the EQ-5D-3L to 82 participants at baseline and 77 at follow-up. After each interview, researchers rated the ease of administering the EQ-5D-3L and made free-text entries on the administration experience. For a subset of 16 interviews, researchers audio-recorded more detailed journal entries. Ease of administration data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Free-text responses were subject to a basic content analysis. The EQ-5D-3L-related journal entries were transcribed, coded and analysed thematically.

Results

Over half of participants were perceived to experience difficulty answering some or all of the items in the EQ-5D-3L (60% at baseline; 54% at follow-up). Analysis of the free-text entries and audio journals identified four themes that question the use of the EQ-5D-3L in this population. The first theme is related to observations of participant intellectual ability and difficulties, for example, in understanding the wording of the measure. Theme 2 is related to the normalisation of adjustments for impairments, which rendered the measure less sensitive in this population. Theme 3 is related to researcher adaptation and non-standard administration. An overarching fourth theme was identified in that people with learning disabilities were viewed as ‘unreliable witnesses’ by both researchers and supporters.

Conclusions

It is recommended that the EQ-5D-3L should not be used in isolation to assess health-related quality of life outcomes in trials research in adults with a learning disability. Further research is required to develop and evaluate a version of the EQ-5D appropriate for this population in trials research. It is unrealistic to expect that adjustments to the wording alone will deliver an appropriate measure: supporter or researcher involvement will almost always be required. This requirement needs to be factored into the development and administration guidelines of any new version of the EQ-5D for adults with a learning disability.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033 [registered 21 January 2013].

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-018-0357-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Health Promotion and Wellness Initiatives Targeting Chronic Disease Prevention and Management for Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Recent Advancements in Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this paper was to review the recent international developments in health promotion and wellness initiatives targeting chronic disease prevention and management for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) targeting type 2 diabetes (T2D).

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been one diabetes prevention program (STOP) and two self-management T2D education programs (DESMOND-ID; OK diabetes) adapted for this population. All three programs have been adapted from other theoretically informed and tested programs developed for the general population. Each program has employed co-design and co-production techniques with all stakeholders. The three programs all target the high-risk lifestyle factors that can lead to T2D and contribute to poor glycaemia control, and have undertaken randomized-feasibility studies, the results of which are promising.

SUMMARY

This paper shows that any health promotion and wellness initiatives need to be tailored and reasonable adjustments made in order to address this population's cognitive impairments and communication difficulties.

Randomized controlled feasibility trial of supported self-management in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus and an intellectual disability: OK Diabetes

AIMS

To undertake a feasibility randomized controlled trial of supported self-management vs treatment as usual in a population of adults with obesity, Type 2 diabetes and an intellectual disability.

METHODS

We conducted an individually randomized feasibility trial. Participants were adults aged >18 years with a mild or moderate intellectual disability, living in the community with Type 2 diabetes, on any therapy other than insulin. Participants had mental capacity to consent to research and the intervention. Inclusion criteria included HbA_1c > 48 mmol/mol (6.5%), BMI >25 kg/m² , or self-reported physical activity below national guideline levels. The experimental intervention was standardized supported self-management delivered by diabetes specialist nurses plus treatment as usual, compared with treatment as usual alone. Feasibility outcomes included: recruitment and retention; intervention acceptability and feasibility; data collection and completeness for physiological state and values for candidate primary outcomes (HbA_1c and BMI).

RESULTS

A total of 82 participants (89% of those contacted and eligible) were randomized. All supported self-management sessions were completed by 35/41 participants (85%); only four completed no sessions. Data on the follow-up candidate primary outcomes HbA_1c and BMI were obtained for 75/82 (91%) and 77/82 participants (94%), respectively. The mean baseline HbA_1c was 56±16.5 mmol/mol (7.3±1.5%) and the mean BMI was 34±7.6 kg/m² .

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to supported self-management and willingness to have blood taken for outcome measurement was good. A definitive randomized controlled trial is feasible in this population. (Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033).

Development of a supported self-management intervention for adults with type 2 diabetes and a learning disability

BACKGROUND

Although supported self-management is a well-recognised part of chronic disease management, it has not been routinely used as part of healthcare for adults with a learning disability. We developed an intervention for adults with a mild or moderate learning disability and type 2 diabetes, building on the principles of supported self-management with reasonable adjustments made for the target population.

METHODS

In five steps, we:Clarified the principles of supported self-management as reported in the published literatureIdentified the barriers to effective self-management of type 2 diabetes in adults with a learning disabilityReviewed existing materials that aim to support self-management of diabetes for people with a learning disabilitySynthesised the outputs from the first three phases and identified elements of supported self-management that were (a) most relevant to the needs of our target population and (b) most likely to be acceptable and useful to themImplemented and field tested the intervention.

RESULTS

The final intervention had four standardised components: (1) establishing the participant's daily routines and lifestyle, (2) identifying supporters and their roles, (3) using this information to inform setting realistic goals and providing materials to the patient and supporter to help them be achieved and (4) monitoring progress against goals.Of 41 people randomised in a feasibility RCT, thirty five (85%) completed the intervention sessions, with over three quarters of all participants (78%) attending at least three sessions.Twenty-three out of 40 (58%) participants were deemed to be very engaged with the sessions and 12/40 (30%) with the materials; 30 (73%) participants had another person present with them during at least one of their sessions; 15/41 (37%) were reported to have a very engaged main supporter, and 18/41 (44%) had a different person who was not their main supporter but who was engaged in the intervention implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was feasible to deliver and, as judged by participation and engagement, acceptable to participants and those who supported them.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033 (registered 21/01/2013).