Senior onderzoeker Huisartsenzorg, Persoonsgerichte Integrale Zorg
Publicatie
Publicatie datum
Effectiveness of tailored support for people with Type 2 diabetes after a first acute coronary event: a multicentre randomized controlled trial (the Diacourse-ACE study)
Kasteleyn, M.J., Vos, R.C., Rijken, M., Schellevis, F.G., Rutten, G.E.H.M. Effectiveness of tailored support for people with Type 2 diabetes after a first acute coronary event: a multicentre randomized controlled trial (the Diacourse-ACE study) Diabetic Medicine: 2016, 33(1), p. 125-133.
Lees online
Aims
To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored, supportive intervention strategy in influencing diabetes-related distress, health status, well-being and clinical outcomes in people with Type 2 diabetes shortly after a first acute coronary event.
Methods
People with Type 2 diabetes and a recent first acute coronary event (n = 201) were randomized to the intervention group (three home visits by a diabetes nurse) or the attention control group (one telephone consultation). Outcomes were measured after discharge (baseline) and at 5 months (follow-up) using validated questionnaires for diabetes-related distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes), well-being (WHO Well-Being Index) and health status (Euroqol 5 Dimensions; Euroqol Visual Analogue Scale). ancova was used to analyse change-over-time differences between groups.
Results
Follow-up data were available for 81 participants in the intervention group (66.0 ± 9.3 years, 76% male) and 80 in the control group (65.6 ± 9.4 years, 75% male) participants. Mean diabetes-related distress was low after hospital discharge (intervention group: 8.2 ± 10.1; control group: 9.2 ± 12.4) and did not change after 5 months (intervention group: 9.2 ± 12.4; control group: 9.0 ± 11.2). Baseline well-being was less favourable but improved significantly in the intervention group (baseline: 58.5 ± 28.0; follow-up: 65.5 ± 23.7; P = 0.005), but not in the control group (baseline: 57.5 ± 25.2; follow-up: 59.6 ± 24.4; P = 0.481). Health status also improved in the intervention group (baseline: 69.9 ± 17.3; follow-up: 76.8 ± 15.6; P < 0.001) but not in the control group (baseline: 68.6 ± 15.9; follow-up: 69.9 ± 16.7; P = 0.470). A significant group effect was found for health status (F = 7.9; P = 0.006).
Conclusions
Although the intervention had no effect on diabetes-related distress, this might be at least partially attributable to very low levels of diabetes-related distress at baseline. Interestingly, health status scores and well-being, which were less favourable at baseline, both improved after the tailored support intervention. (aut. ref.)
To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored, supportive intervention strategy in influencing diabetes-related distress, health status, well-being and clinical outcomes in people with Type 2 diabetes shortly after a first acute coronary event.
Methods
People with Type 2 diabetes and a recent first acute coronary event (n = 201) were randomized to the intervention group (three home visits by a diabetes nurse) or the attention control group (one telephone consultation). Outcomes were measured after discharge (baseline) and at 5 months (follow-up) using validated questionnaires for diabetes-related distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes), well-being (WHO Well-Being Index) and health status (Euroqol 5 Dimensions; Euroqol Visual Analogue Scale). ancova was used to analyse change-over-time differences between groups.
Results
Follow-up data were available for 81 participants in the intervention group (66.0 ± 9.3 years, 76% male) and 80 in the control group (65.6 ± 9.4 years, 75% male) participants. Mean diabetes-related distress was low after hospital discharge (intervention group: 8.2 ± 10.1; control group: 9.2 ± 12.4) and did not change after 5 months (intervention group: 9.2 ± 12.4; control group: 9.0 ± 11.2). Baseline well-being was less favourable but improved significantly in the intervention group (baseline: 58.5 ± 28.0; follow-up: 65.5 ± 23.7; P = 0.005), but not in the control group (baseline: 57.5 ± 25.2; follow-up: 59.6 ± 24.4; P = 0.481). Health status also improved in the intervention group (baseline: 69.9 ± 17.3; follow-up: 76.8 ± 15.6; P < 0.001) but not in the control group (baseline: 68.6 ± 15.9; follow-up: 69.9 ± 16.7; P = 0.470). A significant group effect was found for health status (F = 7.9; P = 0.006).
Conclusions
Although the intervention had no effect on diabetes-related distress, this might be at least partially attributable to very low levels of diabetes-related distress at baseline. Interestingly, health status scores and well-being, which were less favourable at baseline, both improved after the tailored support intervention. (aut. ref.)
Aims
To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored, supportive intervention strategy in influencing diabetes-related distress, health status, well-being and clinical outcomes in people with Type 2 diabetes shortly after a first acute coronary event.
Methods
People with Type 2 diabetes and a recent first acute coronary event (n = 201) were randomized to the intervention group (three home visits by a diabetes nurse) or the attention control group (one telephone consultation). Outcomes were measured after discharge (baseline) and at 5 months (follow-up) using validated questionnaires for diabetes-related distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes), well-being (WHO Well-Being Index) and health status (Euroqol 5 Dimensions; Euroqol Visual Analogue Scale). ancova was used to analyse change-over-time differences between groups.
Results
Follow-up data were available for 81 participants in the intervention group (66.0 ± 9.3 years, 76% male) and 80 in the control group (65.6 ± 9.4 years, 75% male) participants. Mean diabetes-related distress was low after hospital discharge (intervention group: 8.2 ± 10.1; control group: 9.2 ± 12.4) and did not change after 5 months (intervention group: 9.2 ± 12.4; control group: 9.0 ± 11.2). Baseline well-being was less favourable but improved significantly in the intervention group (baseline: 58.5 ± 28.0; follow-up: 65.5 ± 23.7; P = 0.005), but not in the control group (baseline: 57.5 ± 25.2; follow-up: 59.6 ± 24.4; P = 0.481). Health status also improved in the intervention group (baseline: 69.9 ± 17.3; follow-up: 76.8 ± 15.6; P < 0.001) but not in the control group (baseline: 68.6 ± 15.9; follow-up: 69.9 ± 16.7; P = 0.470). A significant group effect was found for health status (F = 7.9; P = 0.006).
Conclusions
Although the intervention had no effect on diabetes-related distress, this might be at least partially attributable to very low levels of diabetes-related distress at baseline. Interestingly, health status scores and well-being, which were less favourable at baseline, both improved after the tailored support intervention. (aut. ref.)
To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored, supportive intervention strategy in influencing diabetes-related distress, health status, well-being and clinical outcomes in people with Type 2 diabetes shortly after a first acute coronary event.
Methods
People with Type 2 diabetes and a recent first acute coronary event (n = 201) were randomized to the intervention group (three home visits by a diabetes nurse) or the attention control group (one telephone consultation). Outcomes were measured after discharge (baseline) and at 5 months (follow-up) using validated questionnaires for diabetes-related distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes), well-being (WHO Well-Being Index) and health status (Euroqol 5 Dimensions; Euroqol Visual Analogue Scale). ancova was used to analyse change-over-time differences between groups.
Results
Follow-up data were available for 81 participants in the intervention group (66.0 ± 9.3 years, 76% male) and 80 in the control group (65.6 ± 9.4 years, 75% male) participants. Mean diabetes-related distress was low after hospital discharge (intervention group: 8.2 ± 10.1; control group: 9.2 ± 12.4) and did not change after 5 months (intervention group: 9.2 ± 12.4; control group: 9.0 ± 11.2). Baseline well-being was less favourable but improved significantly in the intervention group (baseline: 58.5 ± 28.0; follow-up: 65.5 ± 23.7; P = 0.005), but not in the control group (baseline: 57.5 ± 25.2; follow-up: 59.6 ± 24.4; P = 0.481). Health status also improved in the intervention group (baseline: 69.9 ± 17.3; follow-up: 76.8 ± 15.6; P < 0.001) but not in the control group (baseline: 68.6 ± 15.9; follow-up: 69.9 ± 16.7; P = 0.470). A significant group effect was found for health status (F = 7.9; P = 0.006).
Conclusions
Although the intervention had no effect on diabetes-related distress, this might be at least partially attributable to very low levels of diabetes-related distress at baseline. Interestingly, health status scores and well-being, which were less favourable at baseline, both improved after the tailored support intervention. (aut. ref.)