Kathleen Wolff

The Diabetes Literacy and Numeracy Education Toolkit (DLNET) Materials to Facilitate Diabetes Education and Management in Patients With Low Literacy and Numeracy Skills

Purpose Diabetes self-management education is an important component of comprehensive diabetes care. Patients with low health literacy and numeracy may have difficulty translating information from traditional diabetes educational programs and materials into effective self-care. Methods To address this potential barrier to successful diabetes teaching and counseling, the authors developed the Diabetes Literacy and Numeracy Education Toolkit (DLNET). Conclusion The DLNET is composed of 24 interactive modules covering standard diabetes care topics that can be customized to individual patient needs and used by all members of the multidisciplinary diabetes care team. The materials content and formatting aims to improve the ease of use for diabetes patients with low literacy and numeracy by adhering to a lower text reading level, using illustrations for key concepts, and color-coding and other accommodations to guide patients through instructions for self-care. Individual sections of the DLNET may be provided to patients for initial teaching, as well as for reinforcement. Although designed for lower literacy and numeracy skills, the DLNET provides unique materials to facilitate diabetes education for all patients.

Interdisciplinary Team Care for Diabetic Patients by Primary Care Physicians, Advanced Practice Nurses, and Clinical Pharmacists

IN BRIEF Most diabetic patients are managed by primary care physicians, but clinical inertia and limited time with patients hamper efforts to meet treatment goals. Successfully caring for the medical and psychosocial needs of the expanding diabetic population seen in primary care will require new strategies. This article reviews interdisciplinary efforts by primary care physicians, advanced practice nurses, and clinical pharmacists that can achieve improvements in clinical processes and outcomes at reasonable costs.

Overcoming Turf Battles: Developing a Pragmatic, Collaborative Model to Improve Glycemic Control in Patients with Diabetes

BACKGROUND Collaboration between primary care physicians (PCPs) and endocrinologists should be the first step in improving care of patients with diabetes. However, the coordination of care between specialists and PCPs often does not work well. At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, a collaborative model between PCPs and endocrinology was used in an effort to improve glycemic control for patients with diabetes. METHODS In 1998 a project team was formed; the team members attempted to find ways to improve the care of patients with diabetes, specifically patients with poor glycemic control. The team proceeded through ten iterations of the model before reaching one accepted by all-one with clear responsibilities and referral criteria. RESULTS Survey results indicated a high level of satisfaction with the collaborative model among patients and PCPs. Appropriate referrals to the diabetes improvement program--a 12-week outpatient program consisting of instruction and support in diabetes self-management coupled with adjustment of insulin and oral hypoglycemic medications-increased during the team effort, and a control chart indicated a change in the process that was significant and sustained. The patients enrolled in the program experienced a reduction of mean glycated hemoglobin levels from 9.2% at entry to 7.5% after 3 months (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION An initial first step to improving care is to create an environment of trust and collaboration between the PCPs and specialists who assist in that care. After this collaboration has been established, many of the improvements identified in other studies can more easily be implemented.

The PRIDE (Partnership to Improve Diabetes Education) Toolkit: Development and Evaluation of Novel Literacy and Culturally Sensitive Diabetes Education Materials

Purpose Patients with low literacy, low numeracy, and/or linguistic needs can experience challenges understanding diabetes information and applying concepts to their self-management. The authors designed a toolkit of education materials that are sensitive to patients’ literacy and numeracy levels, language preferences, and cultural norms and that encourage shared goal setting to improve diabetes self-management and health outcomes. The Partnership to Improve Diabetes Education (PRIDE) toolkit was developed to facilitate diabetes self-management education and support. Methods The PRIDE toolkit includes a comprehensive set of 30 interactive education modules in English and Spanish to support diabetes self-management activities. The toolkit builds upon the authors’ previously validated Diabetes Literacy and Numeracy Education Toolkit (DLNET) by adding a focus on shared goal setting, addressing the needs of Spanish-speaking patients, and including a broader range of diabetes management topics. Each PRIDE module was evaluated using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument to determine the material’s cultural appropriateness and its sensitivity to the needs of patients with low literacy and low numeracy. Reading grade level was also assessed using the Automated Readability Index (ARI), Coleman-Liau, Flesch-Kincaid, Fry, and SMOG formulas. Conclusions The average reading grade level of the materials was 5.3 (SD 1.0), with a mean SAM of 91.2 (SD 5.4). All of the 30 modules received a “superior” score (SAM >70%) when evaluated by 2 independent raters. The PRIDE toolkit modules can be used by all members of a multidisciplinary team to assist patients with low literacy and low numeracy in managing their diabetes.

The diabetes nutrition education study randomized controlled trial: A comparative effectiveness study of approaches to nutrition in diabetes self-management education

OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of different approaches to nutrition education in diabetes self-management education and support (DSME/S). METHODS We randomized 150 adults with type 2 diabetes to either certified diabetes educator (CDE)-delivered DSME/S with carbohydrate gram counting or the modified plate method versus general health education. The primary outcome was change in HbA1C over 6 months. RESULTS At 6 months, HbA1C improved within the plate method [-0.83% (-1.29, -0.33), P<0.001] and carbohydrate counting [-0.63% (-1.03, -0.18), P=0.04] groups but not the control group [P=0.34]. Change in HbA1C from baseline between the control and intervention groups was not significant at 6 months (carbohydrate counting, P=0.36; modified plate method, P=0.08). In a pre-specified subgroup analysis of patients with a baseline HbA1C 7-10%, change in HbA1C from baseline improved in the carbohydrate counting [-0.86% (-1.47, -0.26), P=0.006] and plate method groups [-0.76% (-1.33, -0.19), P=0.01] compared to controls. CONCLUSION CDE-delivered DSME/S focused on carbohydrate counting or the modified plate method improved glycemic control in patients with an initial HbA1C between 7 and 10%. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Both carbohydrate counting and the modified plate method improve glycemic control as part of DSME/S.

Numeracy and Dietary Intake in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Purpose The purpose of this study is to describe the association between numeracy and self-reported dietary intake in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods Numeracy and dietary intake were assessed with the validated Diabetes Numeracy Test and a validated food frequency questionnaire in a cross-sectional study of 150 primary care patients enrolled in a randomized clinical trial at an academic medical center between April 2008 and October 2009. Associations between numeracy and caloric and macronutrient intakes were examined with linear regression models. Results Patients with lower numeracy consumed a higher percentage of calories from carbohydrates and lower percentages from protein and fat. However, no differences in energy consumption or the percentage of energy intake owing to carbohydrates, fat, or protein were observed in adjusted analyses. Patients with lower numeracy were significantly more likely to report extremely high or low energy intake inconsistent with standard dietary intake. Conclusions Numeracy was not associated with dietary intake in adjusted analyses. Low numeracy was associated with inaccurate dietary reporting. Providers who take dietary histories in patients with diabetes may need to consider numeracy in their assessment of dietary intake.

A randomized controlled trial to prevent glycemic relapse in longitudinal diabetes care: Study protocol (NCT00362193)

BackgroundDiabetes is a common disease with self-management a key aspect of care. Large prospective trials have shown that maintaining glycated hemoglobin less than 7% greatly reduces complications but translating this level of control into everyday clinical practice can be difficult. Intensive improvement programs are successful in attaining control in patients with type 2 diabetes, however, many patients experience glycemic relapse once returned to routine care. This early relapse is, in part, due to decreased adherence in self-management behaviors.ObjectiveThis paper describes the design of the Glycemic Relapse Prevention study. The purpose of this study is to determine the optimal frequency of maintenance intervention needed to prevent glycemic relapse. The primary endpoint is glycemic relapse, which is defined as glycated hemoglobin greater than 8% and an increase of 1% from baseline.MethodsThe intervention consists of telephonic contact by a nurse practitioner with a referral to a dietitian if indicated. This intervention was designed to provide early identification of self-care problems, understanding the rationale behind the self-care lapse and problem solve to find a negotiated solution. A total of 164 patients were randomized to routine care (least intensive), routine care with phone contact every three months (moderate intensity) or routine care with phone contact every month (most intensive).ConclusionThe baseline patient characteristics are similar across the treatment arms. Intervention fidelity analysis showed excellent reproducibility. This study will provide insight into the important but poorly understood area of glycemic relapse prevention.

Glycemic relapse in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE To characterize the occurrence of glycemic relapse after initial improvement in blood glucose levels and to describe predictors of relapse in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS Occurrence of glycemic relapse was analyzed in 393 consecutive patients with type 2 diabetes after participation in a 3-month intensive outpatient intervention. All patients had hemoglobin A1c (A1C) values (3)7% before the intervention and had achieved adequate glycemic control (nadir A1C<7%) afterward. The median follow-up time was 26.5 months. Relapse was defined as a subsequent increase in A1C to (3)7%. RESULTS The probability of glycemic relapse was 45% at 1 year after the intervention and was 76% at 3 years. The median time to relapse was 15.2 months. Cox multivariate regression analysis indicated that treatment with insulin was associated with a greater risk of relapse-- hazard ratio=1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.2), after controlling for the patients age, sex, race, body mass index, duration of diabetes, weight change during the intervention, and nadir A1C value. Among those patients not treated with insulin at the end of the intervention, a shorter duration of diabetes and weight loss during the intervention period were significantly associated with decreased risk of relapse. CONCLUSION The majority of study patients with type 2 diabetes who attained satisfactory glycemic control after intensive outpatient intervention had a relapse after the end of the intervention period. Patients receiving insulin therapy were at particular risk of glycemic relapse. Therefore, such patients should receive high priority for continuation of intensive care or for other relapse prevention measures.

HOSPITALIZATION OF PATIENTS WITH DIABETES

To determine annual hospitalization rates for patients with diabetes mellitus, we retrospectively analyzed the frequency of hospitalization among 905 patients with diabetes receiving primary care in a private practice outpatient program during a 20-month period (1,508 patient-years). We assessed the annual hospitalization rates stratified by diabetes clinical severity index, type of diabetes, type of treatment, age, sex, and mean glycosylated hemoglobin. The all-cause annual hospitalization rate was 211 per 1,000 patients (95% confidence interval, 184 to 238). Hospitalization rates were strongly correlated with measures of clinical severity; hospitalization rates did not vary significantly with type of diabetes, age, or sex. Among patients with type II diabetes, rates were higher in the group treated with insulin. A trend was noted for hospitalization rates to increase with mean glycosylated hemoglobin (not statistically significant in this sample). Overall, 14% of hospitalizations were for metabolic reasons, 45% were related to clinical complications of diabetes, and 41% were unrelated to the presence of diabetes. In analysis of hospitalization rates and therefore health-care expenditures for patients with diabetes, the characteristics of the patient population--and especially measures of clinical severity--must be considered. Interventions to reduce hospitalization can be targeted at high-risk groups.