Association between GP participation in a primary care group and monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle target indicators in people with type 2 diabetes: a cohort study (ELZHA cohort-1)

The Effect and Cost-Effectiveness of Offering a Combined Lifestyle Intervention for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Primary Care: Results of the Healthy Heart Stepped-Wedge Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering the combined lifestyle programme "Healthy Heart", addressing overweight, diet, physical activity, smoking and alcohol, to improve lifestyle behaviour and reduce cardiovascular risk.

DESIGN

A practice-based non-randomised stepped-wedge cluster trial with two-year follow-up. Outcomes were obtained via questionnaires and routine care data. A cost-utility analysis was performed. During the intervention period, "Healthy Heart" was offered during regular cardiovascular risk management consultations in primary care in The Hague, The Netherlands. The period prior to the intervention period served as the control period.

RESULTS

In total, 511 participants (control) and 276 (intervention) with a high cardiovascular risk were included (overall mean ± SD age 65.0 ± 9.6; women: 56%). During the intervention period, 40 persons (15%) participated in the Healthy Heart programme. Adjusted outcomes did not differ between the control and intervention period after 3-6 months and 12-24 months. Intervention versus control (95% CI) 3-6 months: weight: β -0.5 (-1.08-0.05); SBP β 0.15 (-2.70-2.99); LDL-cholesterol β 0.07 (-0.22-0.35); HDL-cholesterol β -0.03 (-0.10-0.05); physical activity β 38 (-97-171); diet β 0.95 (-0.93-2.83); alcohol OR 0.81 (0.44-1.49); quit smoking OR 2.54 (0.45-14.24). Results were similar for 12-24 months. Mean QALYs and mean costs of cardiovascular care were comparable over the full study period (mean difference (95% CI) QALYs: -0.10 (-0.20; 0.002); costs: EUR 106 (-80; 293)).

CONCLUSIONS

For both the shorter (3-6 months) and longer term (12-24 months), offering the Healthy Heart programme to high-cardiovascular-risk patients did not improve their lifestyle behaviour nor cardiovascular risk and was not cost-effective on a population level.

Experiences with tailoring of primary diabetes care in well-organised general practices: a mixed-methods study

Background

Dutch standard diabetes care is generally protocol-driven. However, considering that general practices wish to tailor diabetes care to individual patients and encourage self-management, particularly in light of current COVID-19 related constraints, protocols and other barriers may hinder implementation. The impact of dispensing with protocol and implementation of self-management interventions on patient monitoring and experiences are not known. This study aims to evaluate tailoring of care by understanding experiences of well-organised practices 1) when dispensing with protocol; 2) determining the key conditions for successful implementation of self-management interventions; and furthermore exploring patients’ experiences regarding dispensing with protocol and self-management interventions.

Methods

in this mixed-methods prospective study, practices (n = 49) were invited to participate if they met protocol-related quality targets, and their adult patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes were invited if they had received protocol-based diabetes care for a minimum of 1 year. For practices, study participation consisted of the opportunity to deliver protocol-free diabetes care, with selection and implementation of self-management interventions. For patients, study participation provided exposure to protocol-free diabetes care and self-management interventions.

Qualitative outcomes (practices: 5 focus groups, 2 individual interviews) included experiences of dispensing with protocol and the implementation process of self-management interventions, operationalised as implementation fidelity. Quantitative outcomes (patients: routine registry data, surveys) consisted of diabetes monitoring completeness, satisfaction, wellbeing and health status at baseline and follow-up (24 months).

Results

Qualitative:

In participating practices (n = 4), dispensing with protocol encouraged reflection on tailored care and selection of various self-management interventions

A focus on patient preferences, team collaboration and intervention feasibility was associated with high implementation fidelity

Quantitative:

In patients (n = 126), likelihood of complete monitoring decreased significantly after two years (OR 0.2 (95% CI 0.1–0.5), p < 0.001)

Satisfaction decreased slightly (− 1.6 (95% CI -2.6;-0.6), p = 0.001)

Non-significant declines were found in wellbeing (− 1.3 (95% CI -5.4; 2.9), p = 0.55) and health status (− 3.0 (95% CI -7.1; 1.2), p = 0.16).

Conclusions

To tailor diabetes care to individual patients within well-organised practices, we recommend dispensing with protocol while maintaining one structural annual monitoring consultation, combined with the well-supported implementation of feasible self-management interventions. Interventions should be selected and delivered with the involvement of patients and should involve population preferences and solid team collaborations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07198-2.

Socioeconomic status is not associated with the delivery of care in people with diabetes but does modify HbA1c levels: An observational cohort study (Elzha-cohort 1)

BACKGROUND

Structured primary diabetes care within a collectively supported setting is associated with better monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle-related target indicators amongst people with type 2 diabetes and with better HbA1c levels. Whether socioeconomic status affects the delivery of care in terms of monitoring and its association with HbA1c levels within this approach, is unclear. This study aims to understand whether, within a structured care approach, (1) socioeconomic categories differ concerning diabetes monitoring as recommended; (2) socioeconomic status modifies the association between monitoring as recommended and HbA1c.

METHODS

Observational real-life cohort study with primary care registry data from general practitioners within diverse socioeconomic areas, who are supported with the implementation of structured diabetes care. People with type 2 diabetes mellitus were offered quarterly diabetes consultations. "Monitoring as recommended" by professional guidelines implied minimally one annual registration of HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, LDL, BMI, smoking behaviour and physical activity. Regarding socioeconomic status, deprived, advantageous urban and advantageous suburban categories were compared to the intermediate category concerning (a) recommended monitoring; (b) association between recommended monitoring and HbA1c.

RESULTS

Aim 1 (n = 13 601 people): Compared to the intermediate socioeconomic category, no significant differences in odds of being monitored as recommended were found in the deprived (OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.19-1.08)), advantageous urban (OR 1.27 (95% CI 0.46-3.54)) and advantageous suburban (OR 2.32 (95% CI 0.88-6.08)) categories. Aim 2 (n = 11 164 people): People with recommended monitoring had significantly lower HbA1c levels than incompletely monitored people (-2.4 (95% CI -2.9; -1.8) mmol/mol). SES modified monitoring-related HbA1c differences, which were significantly higher in the deprived (-3.3 (95% CI -4.3; -2.4) mmol/mol) than the intermediate category (-1.3 (95% CI -2.2; -0.4) mmol/mol).

CONCLUSIONS

Within a structured diabetes care setting, socioeconomic status is not associated with recommended monitoring. Socioeconomic differences in the association between recommended monitoring and HbA1c levels advocate further exploration of practice and patient-related factors contributing to appropriate monitoring and for care adjustment to population needs.