Dramatic change in a young woman's perception of her diabetes and remarkable reduction in HbA1c after an individual course of Guided Self-Determination

Self-determination theory interventions versus usual care in people with diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Autonomy-supporting interventions, such as self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions, may improve self-management and clinical and psychosocial outcomes in people with diabetes. Such interventions have never been systematically reviewed assessing both benefits and harms and concurrently controlling the risks of random errors using trial sequential analysis methodology. This systematic review investigates the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions compared to usual care in people with diabetes.

METHODS

We used the Cochrane methodology. Randomized clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory in any setting were eligible. A comprehensive search (latest search April 2022) was undertaken in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. Two authors independently screened, extracted data, and performed risk-of-bias assessment of included trials using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 1.0. Our primary outcomes were quality of life, all-cause mortality, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and nonserious adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcomes were glycated hemoglobin and motivation (autonomy, controlled, amotivation). Outcomes were assessed at the end of the intervention (primary time point) and at maximum follow-up. The analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Trial Sequential Analysis 0.9.5.10. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE.

RESULTS

Our search identified 5578 potentially eligible studies of which 11 randomized trials (6059 participants) were included. All trials were assessed at overall high risk of bias. We found no effect of self-determination theory-based interventions compared with usual care on quality of life (mean difference 0.00 points, 95% CI -4.85, 4.86, I2 = 0%; 225 participants, 3 trials, TSA-adjusted CI -11.83, 11.83), all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, adverse events, glycated hemoglobulin A1c, or motivation (controlled). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. We found beneficial effect on motivation (autonomous and amotivation; low certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no effect of self-determination-based interventions on our primary or secondary outcomes. The evidence was of very low certainty.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020181144.

Impact of the person-centred intervention guided self-determination across healthcare settings-An integrated review

AIM

To review the evidence of the existing literature on the impact of guided self-determination across methodologies in different healthcare settings.

METHODS

An integrated five-stage review.

RESULTS

Forty-five eligible papers were included. Guided self-determination was applied in full- or small-scale, or combined with another intervention or approach in different healthcare settings handling, for example diabetes, stroke survivorship, schizophrenia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medical disorder, gynaecological and breast cancer, endometriosis, persons with chronic pain, persons in haemodialysis and intensive care survivors. The included studies covered 12 randomised trials, 26 qualitative and seven papers of different methodology. A statistically significant effect was found in three trials. Six main themes describe the qualitative findings across papers on patients: (1) Guided self-determination reduces disease-related loneliness, (2) Insight enables integration of life and disease, (3) Reflection sheets-appreciated but challenging tool to prompt insights and person-specific knowledge, (4) New person-specific knowledge enables person-centred support, (5) Feeling seen and believed in a new and trusted relationship and (6) Exchange of knowledge enables the development of life skills. Four themes describe the healthcare professionals' experience: (1) Change of usual practice-a decision from above, (2) A new role-unlearning previous behaviour and need for support, (3) Reflection sheets as facilitators and barriers and (4) Discovering the benefits of changing to a person-centred approach.

CONCLUSION

Overall, guided self-determination proved to have a great impact on patient important outcomes and was useful and well-accepted by the majority of patients and healthcare professionals. Albeit guided self-determination is not a 'one size fits all' method. Continuous training and supervision of professionals are a necessary mean when implementing guided self-determination to enhance adoption and sustainability in clinical practice.

Self-determination theory interventions versus usual care in people with diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Existing self-management and behavioural interventions for diabetes vary widely in their content, and their sustained long-term effectiveness is uncertain. Autonomy supporting interventions may be a prerequisite to achieve 'real life' patient engagement and more long-term improvement through shared decision-making and collaborative goal setting. Autonomy supportive interventions aim to promote that the person with diabetes' motivation is autonomous meaning that the person strives for goals they themselves truly believe in and value. This is the goal of self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions. Self-determination theory has been reviewed but without assessing both benefits and harms and accounting for the risk of random errors using trial sequential analysis. The guided self-determination has not yet been systematically reviewed. The aim of this protocol is to investigate the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions versus usual care in adults with diabetes.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct the systematic review following The Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. This protocol is reported according to the PRISMA checklist. A comprehensive search will be undertaken in the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory provided face-to-face or digitally by any healthcare professional in any setting. The primary outcomes will be quality of life, mortality, and serious adverse events. The secondary will be diabetes distress, depressive symptoms and adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcomes will be glycated haemoglobin and motivation. Outcomes will be assessed at the end of the intervention and at maximum follow-up. The analyses will be performed using Stata version 16 and trial sequential analysis. Two authors will independently screen, extract data from and perform risk of bias assessment of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of the evidence will be assessed by GRADE.

DISCUSSION

Self-determination theory interventions aim to promote a more autonomous patient engagement and are commonly used. It is therefore needed to evaluate the benefit and harms according to existing trials.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020181144.

The Patient-Healthcare Professional Relationship and Communication in the Oncology Outpatient Setting: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Today, cancer care and treatment primarily take place in an outpatient setting where encounters between patients and healthcare professionals are often brief.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to summarize the literature of adult patients' experiences of and need for relationships and communication with healthcare professionals during chemotherapy in the oncology outpatient setting.

METHODS

The systematic literature review was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines and the PICO framework, and a systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Based Practice Database.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included, qualitative (n = 5) and quantitative (n = 4). The studies identified that the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals was important for the patients' ability to cope with cancer and has an impact on satisfaction of care, that hope and positivity are both a need and a strategy for patients with cancer and were facilitated by healthcare professionals, and that outpatient clinic visits framed and influenced communication and relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship and communication between patients and healthcare professionals in the outpatient setting were important for the patients' ability to cope with cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Healthcare professionals need to pay special attention to the relational aspects of communication in an outpatient clinic because encounters are often brief. More research is needed to investigate the type of interaction and intervention that would be the most effective in supporting adult patients' coping during chemotherapy in an outpatient clinic.

Written reflection in an eHealth intervention for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are responsible for the daily decisions and actions necessary to manage their disease, which makes self-management the cornerstone of diabetes care. Many patients do not reach recommended treatment goals, and thus it is important to develop and evaluate innovative interventions that facilitate optimal motivation for adequate self-management of T2DM.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to explore how adults with T2DM experience using reflection sheets to stimulate written reflection in the context of the Guided Self-Determination (GSD) eHealth intervention and how written reflection might affect their motivation for self-management of T2DM.

METHODS

We used a qualitative design in which data were collected through individual interviews. The sample consisted of 10 patients who completed the GSD eHealth intervention, and data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The qualitative content analysis yielded 2 main themes. We labeled the first theme as "Written reflection affects awareness and commitment in diabetes self-management", which reflects 2 subthemes, namely, "Writing creates space and time for autonomous reflection" and "Writing influences individuals' focus in diabetes self-management". We labeled the second theme as "Written reflection is perceived as inapplicable in diabetes self-management", which reflects 2 subthemes, namely, "Responding in writing is difficult" and "The timing of the writing is inappropriate".

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that written reflection in the context of the GSD eHealth intervention may be conducive to motivation for diabetes self-management for some patients. However, it seems that in-person consultation with the diabetes nurse may be necessary to achieve the full potential benefit of the GSD as an eHealth intervention. We advocate further development and examination of the GSD as a "blended" approach, especially for those who consider written reflection to be difficult or unfamiliar.

The effect of guided self-determination on self-management in persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus and HbA1c ≥64 mmol/mol: a group-based randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the impact of guided self-determination (GSD) applied in group training (GSD-GT) in people with chronically elevated HbA_1c and type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) was superior to 'care as usual' in improving HbA_1c and psychological functioning.

SETTING

An outpatient clinic at a university hospital in Western Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 178 adults (all Caucasian) aged 18-55 (mean age 36.7±10.7, 62% women) with type 1 DM for at least 1 year and HbA_1c ≥64 mmol/mol (8.0%) were randomly assigned to participate in either GSD-GT or a control group (CG). Exclusion criteria were severe comorbidity, major psychiatric disorder, cognitive deficiency/language barriers and pregnancy.

INTERVENTION

Intervention group met seven times for 2 hours over 14 weeks to promote patient autonomy and intrinsic motivation using reflection sheets and advanced professional communication in accordance with the GSD methodology.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was HbA_1c and secondary outcomes (all outcomes 9 months post intervention) were self-monitored blood glucose frequency, self-reported diabetes competence, autonomy support by healthcare providers (Health Care Climate Questionnaire), autonomous versus controlled diabetes motivation (Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire), diabetes distress (Problem Areas In Diabetes Scale (PAID) and Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS)), self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) and psychological well-being (World Health Organization five-item Well-Being Index scale).

RESULTS

Among participants allocated to the GSD-GT (=90) 48 completed the study, whereas 83 completed in the CG (n=88). With 95% CIs GSD-GT did not have effect on HbA_1c (B -0.18, CI (-0.48, 0.12), p=0.234). GSD-GT improved autonomy-motivated behaviour (B 0.51, CI (0.25, 0.77), p<0.001), diabetes distress (PAID, B -6.96, CI (-11.40, -2.52), p=0.002), total DDS (B -5.15, CI (-9.34, -0.96), p=0.016), DDS emotional burden (B -7.19, CI (-13.20, -1.19), p=0.019) and self-esteem (B 1.43, CI (0.34, 2.52), p=0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this behavioural intervention must be interpreted cautiously because of recruitment and attrition problems. Medical outcomes did not improve. Psychological outcomes improved, especially reduced diabetes distress.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinical Trials.gov NCT 01317459.

Translating person-centered care into practice: A comparative analysis of motivational interviewing, illness-integration support, and guided self-determination

OBJECTIVE

Person-centred care [PCC] can engage people in living well with a chronic condition. However, translating PCC into practice is challenging. We aimed to compare the translational potentials of three approaches: motivational interviewing [MI], illness integration support [IIS] and guided self-determination [GSD].

METHODS

Comparative analysis included eight components: (1) philosophical origin; (2) development in original clinical setting; (3) theoretical underpinnings; (4) overarching goal and supportive processes; (5) general principles, strategies or tools for engaging peoples; (6) health care professionals' background and training; (7) fidelity assessment; (8) reported effects.

RESULTS

Although all approaches promoted autonomous motivation, they differed in other ways. Their original settings explain why IIS and GSD strive for life-illness integration, whereas MI focuses on managing ambivalence. IIS and GSD were based on grounded theories, and MI was intuitively developed. All apply processes and strategies to advance professionals' communication skills and engagement; GSD includes context-specific reflection sheets. All offer training programs; MI and GSD include fidelity tools.

CONCLUSION

Each approach has a primary application: MI, when ambivalence threatens positive change; IIS, when integrating newly diagnosed chronic conditions; and GSD, when problem solving is difficult, or deadlocked.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Professionals must critically consider the context in their choice of approach.