Comparative Effectiveness of Patient-Driven versus Standardized Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management education and support can be effectively and efficiently delivered in primary care in the form of shared medical appointments (SMAs). Comparative effectiveness of SMA delivery features such as topic choice, multi-disciplinary care teams, and peer mentor involvement is not known. OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of standardized and patient-driven models of diabetes SMAs on patient-level diabetes outcomes. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1060 adults with type 2 diabetes in 22 primary care practices. INTERVENTIONS: Practice personnel delivered the 6-session Targeted Training in Illness Management (TTIM) curriculum using either standardized (set content delivered by a health educator) or patient-driven SMAs (patient-selected topic order delivered by health educators, behavioral health providers [BHPs], and peer mentors). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included self-reported diabetes distress and diabetes self-care behaviors from baseline and follow-up surveys (assessed at 1st and final SMA session), and HbA1c, BMI, and blood pressure from electronic health records. Analyses used descriptive statistics, linear regression, and linear mixed models. KEY RESULTS: Both standardized and patient-driven SMAs effectively improved diabetes distress, self-care behaviors, BMI (- 0.29 on average), and HbA1c (- 0.45% (mmol/mol) on average, 8.3 to 7.8%). Controlling for covariates, there was a small, significant effect of condition on overall diabetes distress in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,841) = 4.3, p = .04), attributable to significant effects of condition on emotion and regimen distress subscales. There was a small, significant effect of condition on diastolic blood pressure in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,5199) = 4.50, p = .03). There were no other differences between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Both SMA models using the TTIM curriculum yielded significant improvement in diabetes distress, self-care, and HbA1c. Patient-driven diabetes SMAs involving BHPs and peer mentors and topic selection did not lead to better clinical or patient-reported outcomes than standardized diabetes SMAs facilitated by a health educator following a set topic order. NIH TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT03590041.

Research interests of family physicians applying for research training.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing need for research to support the practice of high quality family medicine. The Family Medicine Discovers Rapid Cycle Scientific Discovery and Innovation (FMD RapSDI) program is designed to build capacity for family medicine scientific discovery and innovation in the United States. Our objective was to describe the applicants and research questions submitted to the RapSDI program in 2019 and 2020. METHODS: Descriptive analysis for applicant characteristics and rapid qualitative analysis using principles of grounded theory and content analysis to examine the research questions and associated themes. We examined differences by year of application submission and the applicant's career stage. RESULTS: Sixty-five family physicians submitted 70 applications to the RapSDI program; 45 in 2019 and 25 in 2020. 41% of applicants were in practice for five years or less (n = 27), 18% (n = 12) were in in practice 6-10 years, and 40% (n = 26) were ≥ 11 years in practice. With significant diversity in questions, the most common themes were studies of new innovations (n = 20, 28%), interventions to reduce cost (n = 20, 28%), improving screening or diagnosis (n = 19, 27%), ways to address mental or behavioral health (n = 18, 26%), and improving care for vulnerable populations (n = 18, 26%). CONCLUSION: Applicants proposed a range of research questions and described why family medicine is optimally suited to address the questions. Applicants had a desire to develop knowledge to help other family physicians, their patients, and their communities. Findings from this study can help inform other family medicine research capacity building initiatives.

Using a group medical visit model to promote healthy behaviour change with an underserved population.

BACKGROUND: Models of care are needed to address physical activity, nutrition promotion and weight loss in primary care settings, especially with underserved populations who are disproportionately affected by chronic illness. Group medical visits (GMVs) are one approach that can help overcome some of the barriers to behaviour change in underserved populations, including the amount of time required to care for these patients due to socio-economic stressors and psychosocial complexities (1). GMVs have been shown to improve care in coronary artery disease and diabetes, but more evidence is needed in underserved settings. OBJECTIVE: This project sought to evaluate a GMV incorporating a physical activity component in an underserved patient population, measuring biometric and motivation outcome measures. METHODS: This project used a pre-post intervention study design through patient surveys at baseline and 12 weeks. We included validated motivational measures along with self-reported demographic information. A GMV intervention promoting physical activity and nutrition to promote weight loss was delivered by an interdisciplinary primary care team and community partners in a Federally Qualified Health Center in Rochester, NY. The intervention consisted of six, 2-hour sessions that occurred every other week at the clinic site. RESULTS: Participants lost a significant amount of weight and maintained the weight loss at 6 months. In addition, there was a significant improvement in motivation measures. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence that our GMV model can improve weight loss and autonomous motivation in an underserved population. This project has potential for scalability and sustainability.

Addressing Medication Costs During Primary Care Visits: A Before-After Study of Team-Based Training.

Background: Medications contribute to patients' out-of-pocket costs, yet most clinicians do not routinely screen for patients' cost-of-medication (COM) concerns. Objective: To assess whether a single training session improves COM conversations. Design: Before-after cross-sectional surveys of patients and qualitative interviews with clinicians and staff. Setting: 7 primary care practices in 3 U.S. states. Participants: In total, 700 patients were surveyed from May 2017 to January 2018: 50 patients per practice before the intervention and another 50 patients per practice after the intervention. Eligibility criteria included age 18 years or older and taking 1 or more long-term medications. Qualitative interviews with 45 staff members were conducted. Intervention: A single 60-minute training session for clinicians and staff from each practice on COM importance, team-based screening, and cost-saving strategies. Measurements: Patient data (demographics, number of long-term medications, total monthly out-of-pocket medication costs, and history of cost-related medication nonadherence) were obtained immediately before and 3 months after the intervention. Practice staff were interviewed 3 months after the intervention. Results: A total of 700 patient surveys were completed. Frequency of COM discussion improved in 6 of the 7 practices and remained unchanged in 1 practice. Overall, COM conversations with patients increased from 17% at baseline to 32% postintervention (P = 0.00). There was substantial heterogeneity among sites in before-after differences in patient-reported out-of-pocket COM. Qualitative analyses from key informant interviews showed wide variation in implementation of screening approaches, workflow, adoption of a team-based approach, and strategies for addressing COM. Limitation: It is not known whether improvements in COM conversations were sustained beyond 3 months. Conclusion: A single team training to screen and address patients' medication cost concerns improved COM discussions over the short term. Further research is needed to assess sustained effects and impact on patient costs and medication adherence and to determine whether more intensive, scalable interventions are needed. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Effectiveness of 2 methods of promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and emotional well-being with the americans in motion--healthy interventions approach.

PURPOSE: An increasing number of Americans are putting their health at risk from being overweight. We undertook a study to compare patient-level outcomes of 2 methods of implementing the Americans In Motion-Healthy Interventions (AIM-HI) approach to promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and emotional well-being. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial in which 24 family medicine practices were randomized to (1) an enhanced practice approach in which clinicians and office staff used AIM-HI tools to make personal changes and created a healthy environment, or (2) a traditional practice approach in which physicians and staff were trained and asked to use the tools with patients. Of the 610 patients enrolled, 331 were in healthy practices, and 279 were in traditional practices. At 0, 4, and 10 months we assessed blood pressure, body mass index, fasting blood glucose and insulin levels, nuclear magnetic resonance lipoprotein profiles, fitness, dietary intake, physical activity, and emotional well-being. Outcome data were analyzed using linear, mixed-effects multivariate models, adjusting for practices as a random effect. RESULTS: Regardless of patient group, 16.2% of patients who completed a 10-month visit (n = 378 patients, 62% of enrollees) and 10% of all patients enrolled lost 5% or more of their body weight; 16.7% of patients who completed a 10-month visit (10.3% of all enrollees) had a 2-point or greater increase in their fitness level; and 29.2% of 10-month completers (18.0% of all enrollees) lost 5% or more of their body weight and/or increased their fitness level by 2 or more points. There were no significant differences in these outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between the 2 groups in the primary and most secondary outcomes. Both patient groups were able to show significant before-after improvements in selected patient-level outcomes.

Use of the Americans in Motion-Healthy Intervention (AIM-HI) to create a culture of fitness in family practice.

BACKGROUND: Americans in Motion-Healthy Interventions (AIM-HI) is an initiative designed to assist family physicians with positioning fitness (physical activity, nutrition, and emotional well-being) as the treatment of choice for prevention and management of chronic disease. We investigated whether the concept of a culture of fitness would benefit office personnel and carry over to patient care. METHODS: This randomized, controlled trial provided an intervention based on the AIM-HI curriculum to 12 enhanced offices with support for office activities, while 12 traditional offices received only AIM-HI tools with encouragement for use with patients. Before intervention, at 4 months, and at 14 months, we measured the practice personnel's dietary behavior (PrimeScreen), physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire), self-determined (intrinsic) motivation (Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire [TSRQ]), perceived ability to carry out health behaviors (Perceived Competence Scale), and readiness to improve and/or maintain health behaviors (Stages of Change). RESULTS: From 24 practices we enrolled 470 subjects; 21 practices completed the study, and data from 341 patients were analyzed. Differential change from baseline between the enhanced and traditional offices was not evident for behavior changes. An overall decrease from baseline in self-reported total physical activity measured as metabolic equivalent-minutes for all surveyed groups occurred over the study time period (4-month ß = -11.97; 14-month ß = -9.01; P = .003). A statistically significant increase occurred at 4 months among participants from the enhanced practices for the TSRQ outcomes of Healthy Eating (baseline, 3.00 ± 0.12; 4 months, 3.26 ± 0.13; P = .013). Among clinicians, TSRQ Healthy Eating scores increased from 3.19 ± 0.13 at baseline to 3.52 ± 0.14 at 4 months (P = .005). However, increases in TSRQ Eating scores were not sustained by 14 months. Stages of Change scores decreased from baseline to 4 months in enhanced group offices. There was also a decrease in Stages of Change scores among staff from baseline to 14 months. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians and office staff are resistant to health behavior change. External motivation did not seem to help them change. The effect of this intervention on patient care is not yet known.