The participatory development of a national core set of person-centred diabetes outcome constructs for use in routine diabetes care across healthcare sectors

Person-reported outcomes in registered randomised diabetes trials: A mapping review of constructs

AIM

Recently, efforts have been made to use and report person-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Here, we aim to (1) assess the status of inclusion of PROs in registered RCTs over 5 years in people with type 1 or 2 diabetes, and (2) map the PRO measures (PROMs) onto predefined domains.

METHODS

The largest trial registries (Clinicatrials.gov, International Clinical Trial Platform and ISRCTN) were systematically searched for RCTs in people with type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes of all ages between 2018 and 2023. Coding of PROs comprised: (1) PRO measure(s) included yes or no; if yes: (2) PRO(s) as primary outcome yes or no; and (3) mapping PROMs onto predefined PRO domains and per type of intervention.

RESULTS

N = 1543 trials met our inclusion criteria, of which n = 673 (44%) included PROs, assessed by 545 different measures. Twenty per cent of drug trials (n = 112) and 71% of behavioural interventions (n = 405) included PROs. In 149 trials (9.6%), a PRO was the primary outcome. The psychological functioning domain was most often assessed across all trials (21.6%), specifically in behavioural (44.8%) and medical device interventions (29.7%). In drug trials, the physical functioning and functional health domain was most included (9%). Across all trials, the social and family functioning domain was least assessed (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

We noticed an increase in the inclusion of PROs in diabetes RCTs. However, PROs are rarely included as primary outcomes in the majority of studies, particularly in drug trials. The heterogeneity of PROMs used in RCTs underscores the need for standardisation of PROs.

Standardising personalised diabetes care across European health settings: A person-centred outcome set agreed in a multinational Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

Standardised person-reported outcomes (PRO) data can contextualise clinical outcomes enabling precision diabetes monitoring and care. Comprehensive outcome sets can guide this process, but their implementation in routine diabetes care has remained challenging and unsuccessful at international level. We aimed to address this by developing a person-centred outcome set for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, using a methodology with prospects for increased implementability and sustainability in international health settings.

METHODS

We used a three-round questionnaire-based Delphi study to reach consensus on the outcome set. We invited key stakeholders from 19 countries via purposive snowball sampling, namely people with diabetes (N = 94), healthcare professionals (N = 65), industry (N = 22) and health authorities (N = 3), to vote on the relevance and measurement frequency of 64 previously identified clinical and person-reported outcomes. Subsequent consensus meetings concluded the study.

RESULTS

The list of preliminary outcomes was shortlisted via the consensus process to 46 outcomes (27 clinical outcomes and 19 PROs). Two main collection times were recommended: (1) linked to a medical visit (e.g. diabetes-specific well-being, symptoms and psychological health) and (2) annually (e.g. clinical data, general well-being and diabetes self management-related outcomes).

CONCLUSIONS

PROs are often considered in a non-standardised way in routine diabetes care. We propose a person-centred outcome set for diabetes, specifically considering psychosocial and behavioural aspects, which was agreed by four international key stakeholder groups. It guides standardised collection of meaningful outcomes at scale, supporting individual and population level healthcare decision making. It will be implemented and tested in Europe as part of the H2O project.

Person-reported outcomes in diabetes care: What are they and why are they so important?

In this review, we aim to show how person-reported outcomes (PROs) and person-reported experiences (PREs) can significantly contribute to the way diabetes care is delivered, the involvement of people with diabetes in diabetes care, and the collaboration between health care professionals and people with diabetes. This review focuses on the definition and measurement of PROs and PREs, the importance of PROs and PREs for person-centred diabetes care, and integrating the perspectives of people with diabetes in the evaluation of medical, psychological and technological interventions. PROs have been increasingly accepted by Health Technology Assessment bodies and are therefore valued in the context of reimbursement decisions and consequently by regulators and other health care stakeholders for the allocation of health care resources. Furthermore, the review identified current challenges to the assessment and use of PROs and PREs in clinical care and research. These challenges relate to the combination of questionnaires and ecological momentary assessment for measuring PROs and PREs, lack of consensus on a core outcome set, limited sensitivity to change within many measures and insufficient standardization of what can be considered a minimal clinically important difference. Another issue that has not been sufficiently addressed is the involvement of people with diabetes in the design and development of measures to assess PROs and PREs.

Outcomes measured in studies assessing health systems interventions for type 1 diabetes management: A scoping review

AIMS

Describe the outcomes reported in research on health systems interventions for type 1 diabetes management in comparison to the outcomes proposed by a core outcome set (COS) for this condition, an essential list of outcomes that studies should measure.

METHODS

Systematic search of studies published between 2010 and 2021 reporting health systems interventions directed to improve the management of type 1 diabetes using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL. Information on the outcomes was extracted and classified according to a COS: self-management, level of clinical engagement, perceived control over diabetes, diabetes-related quality of life, diabetes burden, diabetes ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycemia, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C).

RESULTS

187 studies were included. Most of the studies included either children (n = 82/187) or adults (n = 82/187) living with type 1 diabetes. The most common outcome measured was HbA1C (n = 149/187), followed by self-management (n = 105/187). While the least measured ones were diabetes ketoacidosis (n = 15/187), and clinical engagement (n = 0/187). None of the studies measured all the outcomes recommended in the COS. Additionally, different tools were found to be used in measuring the same outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a description of what researchers are measuring when assessing health systems interventions to improve type 1 diabetes management. In contrast to a COS, it was found that there is a predominance of clinical-based outcomes over patient-reported outcome measures.

Implications of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures among patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

For the past two decades, the assessment of the quality of diabetes care has mostly relied on clinical quality indicators. These have not included Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) which provide information on outcomes deemed valuable by patients. We aimed to examine the potential utility of PROMs in type 2 diabetes care and to study the association of PROMs with patients' characteristics and clinical quality indicators.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of recently (≤ 4 years) diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 392) in the setting of a large health plan. PROMs were based on two well-validated questionnaires, the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) one-page questionnaire that measures diabetes-related distress, and the ten item PROMIS-10 global health questionnaire that measures general health. Additional items were added following a previous qualitative study among Israeli patients with diabetes. The survey was carried out using phone interviews, and data collected were linked to the electronic medical records. Multivariable regression models were used to assess the associations of socio-demographic variables and clinical quality indicators with the PROMs.

RESULTS

About a fifth of participants (22%) had high diabetes-related distress (PAID score ≥ 40), a third reported that they did not feel confident in self-management of diabetes and about a third reported having sexual dysfunction. Women, younger patients, and those with a low education level (≤ 12 years) reported worse general health, were more likely to experience high diabetes-related distress, and to have low confidence in diabetes self-management. Interestingly, performance of all seven diabetes quality indicators was associated with worse general health and high diabetes-related distress. Of note, levels of glycated hemoglobin, LDL-cholesterol, or blood pressure were not associated with PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMs provide important information on patient self-reported health status and are likely to reflect aspects of the quality of care that are not otherwise available to clinicians. Thus, the use of PROMs has the potential to expand the evaluation of diabetes care and promote patient-centered care. We recommend that policy-makers in the Ministry of Health and health maintenance organizations implement PROMs for assessing and improving the care for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Self-Management Interventions for Adults Living with Type II Diabetes to Improve Patient-Important Outcomes: An Evidence Map

Self-management interventions (SMIs) may be promising in the treatment of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 (T2DM). However, accurate comparisons of their relative effectiveness are challenging, partly due to a lack of clarity and detail regarding the intervention content being evaluated. This study summarizes intervention components and characteristics in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to T2DM using a taxonomy for SMIs as a framework and identifies components that are insufficiently incorporated into the design of the intervention or insufficiently reported. Following evidence mapping methodology, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO from 2010 to 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SMIs for T2DM. We used the terms 'self-management', 'adult' and 'T2DM' for content. For data extraction, we used an online platform based on the taxonomy for SMIs. Two independent reviewers assessed eligible references; one reviewer extracted data, and a second checked accuracy. We identified 665 RCTs for SMIs (34% US, 21% Europe) including 164,437 (median 123, range 10-14,559) adults with T2DM. SMIs highly differed in design and content, and characteristics such as mode of delivery, intensity, location and providers involved were poorly described. The majority of interventions aimed to improve clinical outcomes like HbA1c (83%), weight (53%), lipid profile (45%) or blood pressure (42%); 27% (also) targeted quality of life. Improved knowledge, health literacy, patient activation or satisfaction with care were hardly used as outcomes (<16%). SMIs most often used education (98%), self-monitoring (56%), goal-setting (48%) and skills training (42%) to improve outcomes. Management of emotions (17%) and shared decision-making (5%) were almost never mentioned. Although diabetes is highly prevalent in some minority groups, in only 13% of the SMIs, these groups were included. Our findings highlight the large heterogeneity that exists in the design of SMIs for T2DM and the way studies are reported, making accurate comparisons of their relative effectiveness challenging. In addition, SMIs pay limited attention to outcomes other than clinical, despite the importance attached to these outcomes by patients. More standardized and streamlined research is needed to better understand the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SMIs of T2DM and benefit patient care.

Which diabetes specific patient reported outcomes should be measured in routine care? A systematic review to inform a core outcome set for adults with Type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus: The European Health Outcomes Observatory (H2O) programme

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to identify candidate patient reported outcomes with potential to inform individual patient care and service development for inclusion in a digital outcome set to be collected in routine care, as part of an international project to enhance care outcomes for people with diabetes.

METHODS

PubMed, COSMIN and COMET databases were searched. Published studies were included if they recommended patient reported outcomes that were clinically useful and/or important to people with diabetes. To aid selection decisions, recommended outcomes were considered in terms of the evidence endorsing them and their importance to people with diabetes.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies recommending 53 diabetes specific outcomes, and patient reported outcome measures, were included. The outcomes reflected the experience of living with diabetes (e.g. psychological well-being, symptom experience, health beliefs and stigma) and behaviours (e.g. self-management). Diabetes distress and self-management behaviours were most endorsed by the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The review provides a comprehensive list of candidate outcomes endorsed by international evidence and informed by existing outcome sets, and suggestions for measures.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The review offers evidence to guide clinical application. Integrated measurement of these outcomes in care settings holds enormous potential to improve provision of care and outcomes in diabetes.

Patient-reported outcome measures in diabetes outpatient care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly used in clinical diabetes care to increase patient involvement and improve healthcare services. The objectives were to identify instruments used to measure PROs in outpatient diabetes clinics and to investigate the use of these PRO measures alongside the experiences of patients and healthcare personnel in a clinical setting.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A scoping review was conducted according to the framework of Arksey and O'Malley with scoping searches of Cinahl, EMBASE, Medline and Health and Psychosocial Instruments. Studies reporting on adults with diabetes in a clinical setting where the PRO measure response directly affected patient care were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

In total, 35 197 citations were identified, of which 7 reports presenting 4 different PRO measures were included in the review. All four of the included items measured psychosocial aspects of diabetes, and three included elements of the Problem Areas in Diabetes scale. All the patients were satisfied with the use of PRO measures in clinical care, whereas the level of satisfaction among healthcare personnel with PRO measures varied within and among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited number of eligible studies in this review suggests that research on PRO measures for diabetes outpatient care is scarce. Patients welcome the opportunity to express their concerns through the systematic collection of PRO measures, and some healthcare personnel value the broader insight that PRO measures provide into the impact of diabetes on patients' lives. However, the heterogeneity among services and among patients challenges the implementation of PRO measures. Research is needed to explore how PRO measures in clinical outpatient care affect healthcare personnel workflow.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/46AHC.

Patient-reported outcomes for people with diabetes: what and how to measure? A narrative review

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs.

Impact of Overnight Glucose on Next-Day Functioning in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: An Exploratory Intensive Longitudinal Study

OBJECTIVE

While there is evidence that functioning, or ability to perform daily life activities, can be adversely influenced by type 1 diabetes, the impact of acute fluctuations in glucose levels on functioning is poorly understood.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using dynamic structural equation modeling, we examined whether overnight glucose (coefficient of variation[CV], percent time <70 mg/dL, percent time >250 mg/dL) predicted seven next-day functioning outcomes (mobile cognitive tasks, accelerometry-derived physical activity, self-reported activity participation) in adults with type 1 diabetes. We examined mediation, moderation, and whether short-term relationships were predictive of global patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall next-day functioning was significantly predicted from overnight CV (P = 0.017) and percent time >250 mg/dL (P = 0.037). Pairwise tests indicate that higher CV is associated with poorer sustained attention (P = 0.028) and lower engagement in demanding activities (P = 0.028), time <70 mg/dL is associated with poorer sustained attention (P = 0.007), and time >250 mg/dL is associated with more sedentary time (P = 0.024). The impact of CV on sustained attention is partially mediated by sleep fragmentation. Individual differences in the effect of overnight time <70 mg/dL on sustained attention predict global illness intrusiveness (P = 0.016) and diabetes-related quality of life (P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Overnight glucose predicts problems with objective and self-reported next-day functioning and can adversely impact global patient-reported outcomes. These findings across diverse outcomes highlight the wide-ranging effects of glucose fluctuations on functioning in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Identification of Core Outcome Domains and Design of a Survey Questionnaire to Evaluate Impacts of Digital Health Solutions That Matter to People With Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Digital health solutions (DHS) are increasingly used to support people with diabetes (PwD) to help manage their diabetes and to gather and manage health and treatment data. There is a need for scientifically reliable and valid methods to measure the value and impact of DHS on outcomes that matter to PwD. Here, we describe the development of a survey questionnaire designed to assess the perceptions of PwD toward DHS and their prioritized outcomes for DHS evaluation.

METHOD

We applied a structured process for engagement of a total of nine PwD and representatives of diabetes advocacy organizations. Questionnaire development consisted of a scoping literature review, individual interviews, workshops, asynchronous virtual collaboration, and cognitive debriefing interviews.

RESULTS

We identified three overarching categories of DHS, which were meaningful to PwD and crucial for the identification of relevant outcomes: (1) online/digital tools for information, education, support, motivation; (2) personal health monitoring to support self-management; (3) digital and telehealth solutions for engaging with health professionals. Overall outcome domains identified to be important were diabetes-related quality of life, distress, treatment burden, and confidence in self-management. Additional positive and negative outcomes specific to DHS were identified and corresponding questions were incorporated into the survey questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

We identified the need for self-reporting of quality of life, diabetes distress, treatment burden, and confidence in self-management, as well as specific positive and negative impacts of DHS. We designed a survey questionnaire to further assess the perceptions and perspectives of people with type 1 and 2 diabetes on outcomes relevant for DHS evaluations.

Adapting a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure to Digital Outpatient Specialist Health Care Services for Type 1 Diabetes: User Involvement Study

Background

Diabetes self-management is crucial for patients with type 1 diabetes, and digital services can support their self-management and facilitate flexible follow-up. The potential of using digital patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in routine outpatient care is not fully used owing to a lack of adapted PRO measures.

Objective

This study presents the process of identifying and adapting a digital PRO measure for use in clinical diabetes practice and describes the preferred item topics of the adapted PRO measure, as reported by patients and diabetes specialist nurses.

Methods

With the involvement of patients, diabetes specialist nurses, management, and researchers, we hosted a series of workshops and 2 dialogue conferences. Scoping searches to identify relevant PRO measures formed the foundation for the process. An in-person dialogue conference was conducted with diabetes specialist nurses as participants, and a digital dialogue conference was conducted with patients with type 1 diabetes as participants. A diabetes-specific PRO measure was translated and adapted to our digital platform. Notes and summaries from the dialogue conferences were imported into NVivo (QSR International) and thematically analyzed as a single combined data set.

Results

The thematic analysis of the 2 dialogue conferences aimed to explore the views of patients with type 1 diabetes and diabetes specialist nurses on the outcomes necessary to measure. An overarching theme, Ensuring that the PRO measure captures the patients’ needs precisely and accurately, in a way that facilitates care and communication with health care personnel, was identified and supported with data from both the patients and diabetes specialist nurses. This theme contained four categories: The need for explanatory text after questions to ensure understanding and accurate response, Capturing individual needs in standardized questions, getting to the heart of the patient’s problem, and The questions increase patient reflection.

Conclusions

We successfully conducted an iterative process that identified a PRO measure aligned with the topics raised by the diabetes specialist nurses. Similarly, the patients found the PRO measure to be relevant and one that was addressing their needs. Only minor adjustments were necessary when programming the PRO measure in the digital platform. Our management, patients, and diabetes specialist nurses had a valuable impact on the results. User involvement facilitated a specific focus on the clinical requests to be met by PRO measures and how they must be adapted to local and digital platforms. Overall, this has facilitated the current implementation of the adapted digital PRO measure.

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Digital Patient-Reported Outcome Tool in Routine Outpatient Diabetes Care: Mixed Methods Formative Pilot Study

Background

Improvements in the digital capabilities of health systems provide new opportunities for the integration of patient-reported outcome (PRO) solutions in routine care, which can facilitate the delivery of person-centered diabetes care. We undertook this study as part of our development of a new digital PRO diabetes questionnaire and clinical dialog support tool for use by people with diabetes and their health care professionals (HCPs) to improve person-centered diabetes care quality and outcomes.

Objective

This study evaluates the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived benefits and impacts of using a digital PRO diabetes tool, DiaProfil, in routine outpatient diabetes care.

Methods

Overall, 12 people with diabetes scheduled for routine medical diabetes visits at the outpatient clinic were recruited. Purposive sampling was used to optimize heterogeneity regarding age, gender, duration, type of diabetes, treatment modality, and disease severity. Participants filled out a PRO diabetes questionnaire 2 to 5 days before their visit. During the visit, HCPs used a digital PRO tool to review PRO data with the person with diabetes for collaborative care planning. Participants completed evaluation forms before and after the visit and were interviewed for 30 to 45 minutes after the visit. HCPs completed the evaluation questionnaires after each visit. All visits were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. Data were analyzed using quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods analyses.

Results

People with diabetes found the PRO diabetes questionnaire to be relevant, acceptable, and feasible to complete from home. People with diabetes and HCPs found the digital PRO tool to be feasible and acceptable for use during the diabetes visit and would like to continue using it. HCPs were able to use the tool in a person-centered manner, as intended. For several people with diabetes, completion of the questionnaire facilitated positive reflection and better preparation for the visit. The use of the PRO tool primarily improved the quality of the dialog by improving the identification and focus on the issues most important to the person with diabetes. People with diabetes did not report any negative aspects of the PRO tool, whereas HCPs highlighted that it was demanding when the person with diabetes had many PRO issues that required attention within the predefined time allocated for a visit.

Conclusions

The Danish PRO diabetes questionnaire and the digital tool, DiaProfil, are feasible and acceptable solutions for routine diabetes visits, and this tool may generate important benefits related to advancement of person-centered care. Further research is now required to corroborate and expand these formative insights on a larger scale and in diverse health care settings. The results of this study are therefore being used to define research hypotheses and finalize real-world PRO evaluation tools for a forthcoming large-scale multisector implementation study in Denmark.