Rebecca Pratt Gregory

Addressing Literacy and Numeracy to Improve Diabetes Care: Two Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE Diabetic patients with lower literacy or numeracy skills are at greater risk for poor diabetes outcomes. This study evaluated the impact of providing literacy- and numeracy-sensitive diabetes care within an enhanced diabetes care program on A1C and other diabetes outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In two randomized controlled trials, we enrolled 198 adult diabetic patients with most recent A1C ≥7.0%, referred for participation in an enhanced diabetes care program. For 3 months, control patients received care from existing enhanced diabetes care programs, whereas intervention patients received enhanced programs that also addressed literacy and numeracy at each institution. Intervention providers received health communication training and used the interactive Diabetes Literacy and Numeracy Education Toolkit with patients. A1C was measured at 3 and 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included self-efficacy, self-management behaviors, and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS At 3 months, both intervention and control patients had significant improvements in A1C from baseline (intervention −1.50 [95% CI −1.80 to −1.02]; control −0.80 [−1.10 to −0.30]). In adjusted analysis, there was greater improvement in A1C in the intervention group than in the control group (P = 0.03). At 6 months, there were no differences in A1C between intervention and control groups. Self-efficacy improved from baseline for both groups. No significant differences were found for self-management behaviors or satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS A literacy- and numeracy-focused diabetes care program modestly improved self-efficacy and glycemic control compared with standard enhanced diabetes care, but the difference attenuated after conclusion of the intervention.

Nutrition Practice Guidelines for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Positively Affect Dietitian Practices and Patient Outcomes

OBJECTIVES Assess the acceptance and ease of use of Nutrition Practice Guidelines for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus by dietitians in a variety of settings; determine if nutrition care activities of dietitians change when practice guidelines are available; measure changes in patient control of blood glucose level, measured as glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c); compare patient satisfaction with care and perceptions about quality of life. DESIGN Using the approach of outcomes research, volunteer dietitians were recruited and assigned randomly to a usual care group or a practice guidelines group. Patients with type 1 diabetes were enrolled by dietitians and followed up for a 3-month period. Outcome measures included dietitian care activities, changes in patient HbA1c levels, and patient satisfaction and perceptions about quality of life. SUBJECTS/SETTINGS Dietitians from across the United States who responded to a recruitment notice participated. Their work settings included diabetes referral centers, endocrinology clinics, primary care and community health clinics, hospitals, and a worksite clinic. They recruited patients from their setting for the study. Outcome data were available from dietitians providing care to 24 patients using the new practice guidelines and dietitians providing care to 30 patients using more traditional methods. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS chi 2 Test, t test, and analysis of covariance. RESULTS Dietitians in the practice guidelines group spent 63% more time with patients and were more likely to do an assessment and discuss results with patients than dietitians in the usual care group. Practice guidelines dietitians paid greater attention to glycemic control goals. Levels of HbA1c improved at 3 months in 21 (88%) of practice guidelines patients compared with 16 (53%) of usual care patients. Practice guidelines patients achieved greater reductions in HbA1c level than usual care patients (-1.00 vs -0.33). This difference was statistically significant and clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS/APPLICATIONS Dietitians responded positively to practice guidelines for type 1 diabetes. Use of guidelines resulted in changes in dietitian practices and produced greater improvements in patient blood glucose outcomes at 3 months compared with usual care. Practice guidelines did not significantly influence patient satisfaction with care of perceived quality of life.

Development and validation of the Diabetes Numeracy Test (DNT)

BackgroundLow literacy and numeracy skills are common. Adequate numeracy skills are crucial in the management of diabetes. Diabetes patients use numeracy skills to interpret glucose meters, administer medications, follow dietary guidelines and other tasks. Existing literacy scales may not be adequate to assess numeracy skills. This paper describes the development and psychometric properties of the Diabetes Numeracy Test (DNT), the first scale to specifically measure numeracy skills used in diabetes.MethodsThe items of the DNT were developed by an expert panel and refined using cognitive response interviews with potential respondents. The final version of the DNT (43 items) and other relevant measures were administered to a convenience sample of 398 patients with diabetes. Internal reliability was determined by the Kuder-Richardson coefficient (KR-20). An a priori hypothetical model was developed to determine construct validity. A shortened 15-item version, the DNT15, was created through split sample analysis.ResultsThe DNT had excellent internal reliability (KR-20 = 0.95). The DNT was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) with education, income, literacy and math skills, and diabetes knowledge, supporting excellent construct validity. The mean score on the DNT was 61% and took an average of 33 minutes to complete. The DNT15 also had good internal reliability (KR-20 = 0.90 and 0.89). In split sample analysis, correlations of the DNT-15 with the full DNT in both sub-samples was high (rho = 0.96 and 0.97, respectively).ConclusionThe DNT is a reliable and valid measure of diabetes related numeracy skills. An equally adequate but more time-efficient version of the DNT, the DNT15, can be used for research and clinical purposes to evaluate diabetes related numeracy.

Literacy, numeracy, and portion-size estimation skills.

BACKGROUND Portion-size estimation is an important component of weight management. Literacy and numeracy skills may be important for accurate portion-size estimation. It was hypothesized that low literacy and numeracy would be associated with decreased accuracy in portion estimation. METHODS A cross-sectional study of primary care patients was performed from July 2006 to August 2007; analyses were performed from January 2008 to October 2008. Literacy and numeracy were assessed with validated measures (the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine and the Wide Range Achievement Test, third edition). For three solid-food items and one liquid item, participants were asked to serve both a single serving and a specified weight or volume amount representing a single serving. Portion-size estimation was considered accurate if it fell within +/-25% of a single standard serving. RESULTS Of 164 participants, 71% were women, 64% were white, and mean (SD) BMI was 30.6 (8.3) kg/m(2). While 91% reported completing high school, 24% had <9th-grade literacy skills and 67% had <9th-grade numeracy skills. When all items were combined, 65% of participants were accurate when asked to serve a single serving, and 62% were accurate when asked to serve a specified amount. In unadjusted analyses, both literacy and numeracy were associated with inaccurate estimation. In multivariate analyses, only lower literacy was associated with inaccuracy in serving a single serving (OR=2.54; 95% CI=1.11, 5.81). CONCLUSIONS In this study, many participants had poor portion-size estimation skills. Lower literacy skills were associated with less accuracy when participants were asked to serve a single serving. Opportunities may exist to improve portion-size estimation by addressing literacy.

Utility of a Brief Self-Efficacy Scale in Clinical Training Program Evaluation

Self-efficacy is often studied as a predictor of professional practice behaviors or as an outcome of clinical training, using brief scales with little validation. This study examines the utility of a brief self-efficacy scale in the evaluation of a clinical training program. Subjects were 119 registered dietitians who participated in diabetes training. Hypothesized relationships between self-efficacy ratings and indices of skill mastery, participation in training, and subsequent practice change were examined. Self-efficacy ratings after training correlated significantly with relevant prior experience (r = .4 and .29, p < .01) but not total experience and with knowledge post-test score (r = .21, p < .02). Self-efficacy for all 12 program objectives increased significantly after training. Post-training self-efficacy for two program objectives correlated significantly with self-reported successful practice changes related to those objectives (r = .4, p < .04 and r = .51, p < .01). The data suggest that brief self-efficacy assessments can contribute meaningfully to clinical training program evaluation.

Traditional vs Anchored Instruction for Diabetes-Related Nutritional Knowledge, Skills, and Behavior

This paper describes a nutrition education experiment in which traditional direct instruction was compared with a problem-solving method called anchored instruction (AI). Participants were 69 children ages 9 to 15 years, with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM), who attended a diabetes camp. Following pretesting, campers were assigned to AI or direct instruction control classes. Posttests involved evaluating diabetes knowledge, personal meal plan knowledge, ability to choose an appropriate meal from a buffet line, and ability to pack appropriate meals for an overnight campout. AI and direct instruction both produced significant knowledge gains in this study. However, because the scores for the two groups did not differ, this study was unsuccessful in replicating results of other studies or extending the findings to selected measures of actual behavior.

Use of Carbohydrate Counting for Meal Planning in Type I Diabetes

Certain questions often arise regarding carbohydrate counting, such as: Why use carbohydrate counting ? Where does one start? How much carbolrydrate is prescribed? How does one balance the diet? How is carbohydrate counting taught to patients? Which patients are the best candidates for carbohydrate counting? This article provides possible answers to these questions based on clinical experience at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Diabetes Research and Training Center, and the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial.

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.

Diabetes Training for Dietitians: Needs Assessment, Program Description, and Effects on Knowledge and Problem Solving

Recent changes in management and medical nutrition therapy for diabetes mellitus have produced a need to retrain many practicing dietitians. To meet this need, a multidisciplinary group experienced in medical nutrition therapy and educational methods used a formal needs-assessment process to design a new training program. Sugar is Not a Poison (SNAP): The Dietitians New Role in Diabetes Management is a 2 1/2-day program that uses written text, didactic presentation, and exercises that simulate patient encounters to accomplish 12 learning objectives. Program evaluations show high levels of participant satisfaction. Mean (+/- standard deviation) scores on pre- and postests of knowledge and problem solving were 69 +/- 13% and 86 +/- 9%, respectively (P < 0.01). The SNAP program needs assessment, training methods, and knowledge problem-solving test are relevant to all types of education programs in clinical dietetics.

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.