Elizabeth A. Beverly

The effect of a structured behavioral intervention on poorly controlled diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Although maintaining nearly normal glycemia delays onset and slows progression of diabetes complications, many patients with diabetes and their physicians struggle to achieve glycemic targets. The best methods to support patients as they follow diabetes prescriptions and recommendations are unclear. METHODS To test the efficacy of a behavioral diabetes intervention in improving glycemia in long-duration, poorly controlled diabetes, we randomized 222 adults with diabetes (49% type 1) (mean [SD] age, 53 [12] years; mean [SD] disease duration 18 [12] years; mean [SD] hemoglobin A(1c) [HbA(1c)] concentration, 9.0% [1.1%]) to attend (1) a 5-session manual-based, educator-led structured group intervention with cognitive behavioral strategies (structured behavioral arm); (2) an educator-led attention control group education program (group attention control); or (3) unlimited individual nurse and dietitian education sessions for 6 months (individual control). Outcomes were baseline and 3-, 6-, and 12-month postintervention HbA(1c) levels (primary) and frequency of diabetes self-care, 3-day pedometer readings, 24-hour diet recalls, average number of glucose checks, physical fitness, depression, coping style, self-efficacy, and quality of life (secondary). RESULTS Linear mixed modeling found that all groups showed improved HbA(1c) levels (P < .001). However, the structured behavioral arm showed greater improvements than the group and individual control arms (3-month HbA(1c) concentration changes: -0.8% vs -0.4% and -0.4%, respectively (P = .04 for group × time interaction). Furthermore, participants with type 2 disease showed greater improvement than those with type 1 (P = .04 for type of diabetes × time interaction). Quality of life, glucose monitoring, and frequency of diabetes self-care did not differ by intervention over time. CONCLUSIONS A structured, cognitive behavioral program is more effective than 2 control interventions in improving glycemia in adults with long-duration diabetes. Educators can successfully use modified psychological and behavioral strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT000142922.

Look Who’s (Not) Talking: Diabetic patients’ willingness to discuss self-care with physicians

OBJECTIVE Nearly one-half of diabetic patients have glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels above recommended targets. Effective physician–patient communication improves glycemia and diabetes self-care; however, communication gaps may exist that prevent patients from discussing self-care problems with treatment providers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We assessed diabetic patients’ (n = 316, 85% white, 51% female, 71% type 2 diabetes, 59 ± 11 years old, 16 ± 3 years education, 19 ± 13 years diabetes duration, and HbA1c = 7.9 ± 1.4%) HbA1c, frequency of self-care, diabetes-related distress, depressive and anxiety symptoms, coping styles, diabetes quality of life, and self-care communication in the treatment relationship. Multivariate logistic regression models examined the main and interaction effects of health and psychosocial factors associated with patients’ reluctance to discuss self-care. RESULTS Patients reported positive relationships with their doctors and valued honest communication; however, 30% of patients were reluctant to discuss self-care. Reluctant patients reported less frequent self-care (P = 0.05), lower diabetes quality of life (P = 0.002), and more diabetes-related distress (P = 0.001), depressive symptoms (P < 0.001), and anxiety symptoms (P = 0.001). Patients who reported elevated depressive symptoms, although not necessarily major depression, were more likely to be reluctant to discuss self-care (odds ratio [OR] 1.66 for 10-point change in t score; P < 0.001), whereas patients who were older (OR 0.78 for 10-year change; P = 0.05) and those who used more self-controlled coping styles (OR 0.78 for 10-point change; P = 0.007) were less likely to be reluctant. CONCLUSIONS Awareness of elevated depressive symptoms is important in clinical practice given that these patients may be more reluctant to discuss self-care. Interventions and evidence-based approaches are needed to improve both depressive symptoms and physician-patient communication about self-care.

The role of health behaviors in mediating the relationship between depressive symptoms and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a structural equation modeling approach

ObjectivesWe investigated the longitudinal association between depressive symptoms and glycemic control (HbA1c) in adults with type 2 diabetes, and the extent to which that association was explained by health behaviors.MethodsThis study assessed data on 998 adults (aged 51 and above) with type 2 diabetes in the US nationally representative Health and Retirement Study and its diabetes-specific mail survey. Participants’ depressive symptoms and baseline health behaviors (exercise, body weight control, and smoking status) were collected in 1998. Follow-up health behaviors and the glycemic control outcome were measured at a 2- and 5-year intervals, respectively.ResultsNearly one in four of participants (23%) reported moderate or high levels of depressive symptoms at baseline (CES-D score ≥3). Adults with higher levels of depressive symptoms at baseline showed lower scores on baseline and follow-up health behaviors as well as higher HbA1c levels at a 5-year follow-up. Structural equation models (SEM) reveal that health behaviors accounted for 13% of the link between depressive symptoms and glycemic control.ConclusionsThe long-term relationship between depressive symptoms and glycemic control was supported in the present study. Health behaviors, including exercise, body weight control, and smoking status, explained a sizable amount of the association between depressive symptoms and glycemic control. More comprehensive diabetes self-care behaviors should be examined with available data. Other competing explicators for the link, such as endocrinological process and antidepressant effects, also warrant further examination.

Psychosocial factors associated with use of continuous glucose monitoring

Diabet. Med. 27, 1060–1065 (2010)

Perceived challenges and priorities in co-morbidity management of older patients with Type 2 diabetes.

Diabet. Med. 28, 781–784 (2011)

Understanding Physicians’ Challenges When Treating Type 2 Diabetic Patients’ Social and Emotional Difficulties: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE To explore physicians’ awareness of and responses to type 2 diabetic patients’ social and emotional difficulties. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 physicians. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS Three themes emerged: 1) physicians’ awareness of patients’ social and emotional difficulties: physicians recognized the frequency and seriousness of patients’ social and emotional difficulties; 2) physicians’ responses to patients’ social and emotional difficulties: many reported that intervening with these difficulties was challenging with few treatment options beyond making referrals, individualizing care, and recommending more frequent follow-up visits; and 3) the impact of patients’ social and emotional difficulties on physicians: few available patient treatment options, time constraints, and a perceived lack of psychological expertise contributed to physicians’ feeling frustrated, inadequate, and overwhelmed. CONCLUSIONS Recognition and understanding of physicians’ challenges when treating diabetes patients’ social and emotional difficulties are important for developing programmatic interventions.

Achieving glycemic control in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a critical comparison of current options

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing in the elderly. Because of the unique characteristics of elderly people with T2DM, therapeutic strategy and focus should be tailored to suit this population. This article reviews the guidelines and studies related to older people with T2DM worldwide. A few important themes are generalized: 1) the functional and cognitive status is critical for older people with T2DM considering their life expectancy compared to younger counterparts; 2) both severe hypoglycemia and persistent hyperglycemia are deleterious to older adults with T2DM, and both conditions should be avoided when determining therapeutic goals; 3) recently developed guidelines emphasize the avoidance of hypoglycemic episodes in older people, even in the absence of symptoms. In addition, we raise the concern of glycemic variability, and discuss the rationale for the selection of current options in managing this patient population.

Impact of reinforcement of diabetes self-care on poorly controlled diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.

Purpose The purpose of the study was to assess the value of reinforcing diabetes self-management for improving glycemia and self-care among adults with type 2 diabetes who had at least 3 hours of prior diabetes education. Methods In this randomized controlled trial, 134 participants (75% white, 51% female, 59 ± 9 years old, 13 ± 8 years with diabetes, A1C = 8.4% ± 1.2%) were randomized to either a group map-based program (intervention) or group education on cholesterol and blood pressure (control). Participants were assessed for A1C levels, diabetes self-care behaviors (3-day pedometer readings, 6-minute walk test, blood glucose checks, frequency of self-care), and psychosocial factors (distress, frustration, quality of life) at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months post intervention and health literacy at baseline. Results Groups did not differ on baseline characteristics including A1C levels, health literacy, or self-care; however, the intervention group had more years of education than controls. Intervention arm participants modestly improved A1C levels at 3 months post intervention but did not maintain that improvement at 6 and 12 months while control patients did not improve A1C levels at any time during follow-up. Importantly, frequency of self-reported self-care, diabetes quality of life, diabetes-related distress, and frustration with diabetes self-care improved in both groups over time. Conclusions Reinforcing self-care with diabetes education for patients who have not met glycemic targets helps improve A1C and could be considered a necessary component of ongoing diabetes care. The best method to accomplish reinforcement needs to be established.

Quality of Life and Technology: Impact on Children and Families With Diabetes

Ensuring quality of life (QOL) while maintaining glycemic control within targets is an important challenge in type 1 and type 2 diabetes treatment. For children with diabetes, QOL includes enjoying meals, feeling safe in school, and perceiving positive, supportive relationships with parents, siblings, and friends. Yet many treatment-related and psychosocial barriers can interfere with a child’s QOL and their ability to manage diabetes effectively. Diabetes management also imposes considerable lifestyle demands that are difficult and often frustrating for children to negotiate at a young age. Recent advances in diabetes medications and technologies have improved glycemic control in children with diabetes. Two widely used technologies are the insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system. These technologies provide patients with more flexibility in their daily life and information about glucose fluctuations. Several studies report improvements in glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes using the insulin pump or sensor-augmented pump therapy. Importantly, these technologies may impact QOL for children and families with diabetes, although they are rarely used or studied in the treatment of children with type 2 diabetes. Further, emerging closed loop and web- and phone-based technologies have great potential for supporting diabetes self-management and perhaps QOL. A deeper understanding and appreciation of the impact of diabetes technology on children’s and parents’ QOL is critical for both the medical and psychological care of diabetes. Thus, the purpose of this review is to discuss the impact of new diabetes technologies on QOL in children, adolescents and families with type 1 diabetes.

Do Older Adults Aged 60–75 Years Benefit From Diabetes Behavioral Interventions?

OBJECTIVE In this secondary analysis, we examined whether older adults with diabetes (aged 60–75 years) could benefit from self-management interventions compared with younger adults. Seventy-one community-dwelling older adults and 151 younger adults were randomized to attend a structured behavioral group, an attention control group, or one-to-one education. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We measured A1C, self-care (3-day pedometer readings, blood glucose checks, and frequency of self-care), and psychosocial factors (quality of life, diabetes distress, frustration with self-care, depression, self-efficacy, and coping styles) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months postintervention. RESULTS Both older (age 67 ± 5 years, A1C 8.7 ± 0.8%, duration 20 ± 12 years, 30% type 1 diabetes, 83% white, 41% female) and younger (age 47 ± 9 years, A1C 9.2 ± 1.2%, 18 ± 12 years with diabetes, 59% type 1 diabetes, 82% white, 55% female) adults had improved A1C equally over time. Importantly, older and younger adults in the group conditions improved more and maintained improvements at 12 months (older structured behavioral group change in A1C −0.72 ± 1.4%, older control group −0.65 ± 0.9%, younger behavioral group −0.55 ± 1.2%, younger control group −0.43 ± 1.7%). Furthermore, frequency of self-care, glucose checks, depressive symptoms, quality of life, distress, frustration with self-care, self-efficacy, and emotional coping improved in older and younger participants at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest that, compared with younger adults, older adults receive equal glycemic benefit from participating in self-management interventions. Moreover, older adults showed the greatest glycemic improvement in the two group conditions. Clinicians can safely recommend group diabetes interventions to community-dwelling older adults with poor glycemic control.