Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Epidemiology/Health Services/Psychosocial Research

Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes Associated With an Intervention to Enhance Quality of Care for Rural Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Results of a controlled trial

  1. Sheri L. Maddigan, MSC12,
  2. Sumit R. Majumdar, MD, MPH, FRCPC23,
  3. Lisa M. Guirguis, MSC2,
  4. Richard Z. Lewanczuk, MD, PHD, FRCPC4,
  5. T. K. Lee, MD, FRCPC356,
  6. Ellen L. Toth, MD, FRCPC24 and
  7. Jeffrey A. Johnson, PHD12
  1. 1Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  2. 2Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  3. 3Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  4. 4Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  5. 5Division of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  6. 6Department of Medicine, Grey Nuns Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Jeffrey A. Johnson, PhD, Institute of Health Economics, #1200 10405 Jasper Ave., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 3N4. E-mail: jeff.johnson{at}ualberta.ca
Diabetes Care 2004 Jun; 27(6): 1306-1312. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.27.6.1306
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Results of a controlled trial

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—The aim of this study was to examine patient-reported outcomes in a controlled trial of a multifaceted provider-level intervention to improve quality of care for rural patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We conducted a before/after intervention study with concurrent controls in two rural regions in Alberta, Canada. The intervention consisted of six monthly visits by a multidisciplinary health care team and was primarily directed at primary care providers. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes were assessed after 6 months. Patient-reported outcomes included changes in health-related quality of life (Health Utilities Index Mark 3 [HUI3]), satisfaction with care, lifestyle (Diabetes Lifestyle Form), and adherence to self-care activities. Analysis of covariance was used to assess differences over time between the control and intervention regions.

RESULTS—A total of 200 intervention and 172 control subjects were included in this analysis. After adjusting for important clinical and demographic differences, a statistically significant and clinically important improvement in the overall HUI3 score was seen at the 6-month follow-up in the intervention region (0.06 [95% CI 0.02–0.10]) compared with the control region (0.01 [−0.04 to 0.04]) (P = 0.03 for the difference between groups). Satisfaction with general medical care (P < 0.001 between groups) and diabetes care (P < 0.001 between groups) increased among patients in the intervention region compared with the control region. Self-efficacy, attitudes, and beliefs about diabetes control all increased in the intervention region when compared with the control region, but adherence to self-care activities did not.

CONCLUSIONS—A provider-level intervention directed at improving quality of clinical care for patients with type 2 diabetes also had a favorable impact on overall health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, and other humanistic outcomes.

  • CDA-TDRP, Canadian Diabetes Association Traveling Diabetes Resource Program
  • DLF, Diabetes Lifestyle Form
  • HRQL, health-related quality of life
  • HUI3, Health Utilities Index Mark 3

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition that confers a substantial burden on any health care system because of its increasing prevalence and its associated economic impact (1–4). Evidence-based diabetes management that addresses blood pressure, lipids, and glycemic control can reduce morbidity and mortality and may decrease health care costs (5–11). Despite a wealth of evidence, there is growing recognition of treatment gaps in diabetes care when “best practice” is compared with usual care in both urban academic (12–14) and rural settings (15–19).

Interventions aimed at improving the management of diabetes have been somewhat successful in changing the processes for delivering care and have improved intermediate or surrogate outcomes, such as glycemic control. At least one controlled study has demonstrated that comprehensive management of type 2 diabetes can improve both surrogate measures and clinical events (20). Patient-reported outcomes, however, have often been overlooked in the evaluation of such interventions (20,21). In a recent review of 41 studies of community-based controlled interventions to improve processes of care or outcomes in patients with diabetes (21), only four studies evaluated patient-reported outcomes in a manner that would be considered scientifically valid. Furthermore, few patient-reported outcomes other than health-related quality of life (HRQL) were captured (21).

Patient-reported or humanistic outcomes, including HRQL and satisfaction with care, are important to consider because the burden associated with diabetes may extend beyond what is captured by clinical measures. Closing treatment gaps and reaching targets for clinical outcomes often requires more intensive management of diabetes. More intensive management can create an increased sense of illness burden, and this may result in a net negative impact on HRQL (22) or failure to demonstrate an improvement in HRQL (23–29), despite improvements in clinical measures. Furthermore, physiological measures, such as A1c, do not necessarily reflect how patients feel. The impact of interventions targeted at enhancing the quality of care in diabetes should, therefore, be evaluated broadly and capture these important patient-reported outcomes.

Therefore, when we designed and conducted a controlled trial of clinical quality improvement for rural patients with type 2 diabetes, we ensured that we obtained detailed information about humanistic outcomes in addition to the clinical measurements that were the focus of the intervention (30,31). The clinical outcomes of this trial have previously been reported (31). Our intervention, directed at primary care providers in rural health regions, was associated with trends toward improvement in overall quality of clinical care and a significant improvement in blood pressure management (31). In a prespecified analysis, we hypothesized that our provider-level intervention would also lead to improvements in patient-reported outcomes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted the Diabetes Outreach Van Enhancement (DOVE) study, a prospective before/after study with concurrent controls, to evaluate a provider-level intervention to improve the quality of clinical care for rural patients with type 2 diabetes. The study design and rationale (30) and clinical results (31) have been previously reported. In summary, two comparable and geographically adjacent rural health regions in Northern Alberta were selected and randomly allocated to intervention or control. The intervention region had a population of 20,000 residents, 17 physicians, and 1 full-time and 2 part-time diabetes educators, whereas the control region had a population of 25,000 residents, 22 physicians, and 1 part-time diabetes educator. Both regions were approximately a 6-h drive from the nearest secondary or tertiary care referral centers. We estimated that ∼900 individuals in the control region and 720 individuals in the intervention region would have type 2 diabetes. These approximations were derived using population estimates of the prevalence of diabetes in Alberta (4.0%) and the observation that generally 90% of cases of diabetes in Canada are attributable to type 2 diabetes (32).

Subjects were recruited using identical methods in both regions via referrals from diabetes health care professionals, local pharmacists, primary care physicians, and self-referral. Subjects were included if they had type 2 diabetes, gave informed consent, and had sufficient English literacy to answer questionnaires. We excluded those unable or unwilling to provide consent or individuals with a foreshortened life expectancy. The study was approved by the Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Alberta.

Usual care (control).

In the control region, local providers delivered usual care with the addition of three bimonthly visits by the Canadian Diabetes Association Traveling Diabetes Resource Program (CDA-TDRP). The CDA-TDRP travels by van to communities in rural Alberta, raising diabetes awareness and emphasizing patient self-management.

Provider-level intervention.

In addition to bimonthly CDA-TDRP visits, the intervention region was exposed to the diabetes outreach service (30,31). The service consisted of a team of specialist physicians, nurse educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. The service traveled to the larger communities in the region on a monthly basis for 6 months, delivering targeted educational messages. Overall, the aim was to promote the concept of vascular health by emphasizing the interaction of blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose on macrovascular complications of diabetes. These risk factors were promoted because of the availability of effective pharmacotherapies, the cardiovascular risk in diabetes, and their emphasis in clinical practice guidelines (8). Educational messages were delivered, for the most part, by specialist physicians to small groups (i.e., two to six) of primary care physicians, using techniques of group academic detailing (31,33–35). Specific components of the intervention that targeted primary care physicians included small group discussions of real and theoretical cases related to risk factors, delivered by well-known and respected specialists, one-on-one academic detailing by a trained pharmacist, and a referral service for a limited number of patients. In-services were provided for allied health care professionals in groups of 8 to 30. These in-services focused on the importance and management of risk factors. Public lectures focusing on self-management of risk factors were also a component of the intervention.

Measures

To assess the impact of the intervention on patient-reported outcomes, questionnaires were administered at baseline and at 6 months. Questionnaires included demographic and clinical information and self-reported measures of adherence, HRQL, attitudes toward diabetes, and satisfaction with health care. All questionnaires were self-completed and self-reported.

The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) is a preference-based measure of HRQL that uses multiattribute utility theory to assign valuations to different health states (36–38). We previously demonstrated the construct validity of the HUI3 in patients with type 2 diabetes (39). Using the multiattribute approach, health states are defined by a classification system that includes a set of dimensions or attributes of HRQL with a number of different levels for each attribute. In the HUI3 system, eight attributes (including vision, hearing, speech, ambulation, dexterity, emotion, cognition, and pain) define health status and HRQL. Each attribute has five or six levels, creating 972,000 unique HUI3 health states (37–39). Global scores on the HUI3 range from −0.36 to 1.0 with −0.36 representing the utility of the worst possible HUI3 health state, 0.0 representing dead, and 1.0 representing perfect health (37). Differences of greater than 0.03 for HUI3 overall scores are considered to be clinically important (37,39).

The Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities is a 12-item measure of adherence to diet (five items), exercise (three items), blood glucose testing (two items), and diabetes medication activities (two items) (40). In the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities, participants rated either the percentage of time that they adhered to aspects of diet and the number of days or the percentage of time they adhered to exercise recommendations. As recommended by the developers, a z score for each self-care activity was then calculated (40).

The Diabetes Lifestyle Form (DLF) is a 20-item questionnaire with three subscales: self-efficacy (five items), beliefs (six items), and attitudes (nine items) toward diabetes (41). Items were scored on five-point Likert scales with higher scores representing more positive attitudes and beliefs toward diabetes and higher self-efficacy in managing diabetes. Items were averaged to create an overall DLF score and five-point subscale scores (41).

Patient satisfaction with their care was assessed using four items: two general items taken from the general satisfaction subscale of the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (42) and two analogous items specific to diabetes care. Items were scored on five-point Likert scales and were positively and negatively worded to reduce acquiescent response bias. Each scale (general and diabetes specific) was scored out of 100 points with higher scores reflecting greater satisfaction.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline characteristics of the intervention and control groups. ANOVA and χ2 tests, as appropriate, were used to determine whether baseline differences between groups on any demographic characteristics, clinical parameters, or patient-reported outcomes were statistically significant.

Change scores were computed for each patient-reported outcome measure from baseline to the follow-up assessment (i.e., 6-month score minus baseline score). Relative changes were compared between the intervention and control regions using baseline-adjusted ANCOVA. Because there were some clinical and demographic differences at baseline between groups, we conducted both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. In one set of analyses, baseline scores for the patient-reported outcome being analyzed were entered as the only covariate to give a more transparent view of the actual data before controlling for other factors. For clarity, these analyses are referred to as “unadjusted.” In the second set of analyses, determinants of health were included in the model to adjust for differences between groups. Age, sex, marital status, education, income, aboriginal status, duration of diabetes, and body mass index were controlled to adjust for potential confounding. Baseline scores were also controlled to adjust for initial differences between groups. Clinical parameters that differed between groups, but were unrelated to the patient-reported outcomes, were not controlled for in the analysis. We refer to these analyses as “adjusted,” and they are the focus of this report. All analyses were conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Specifically, we used a conservative last observation carried forward approach for missing scale scores at the 6-month follow-up. All analyses were conducted using SPSS 11.5 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). We considered a two-tailed P value <0.05 to be statistically significant, did not adjust analyses for multiple testing, and presented estimates of effect with their 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 393 (210 intervention and 183 control) individuals with type 2 diabetes were enrolled in the study. This represents ∼29 and 20% of individuals with type 2 diabetes in the intervention and control regions, respectively. Of the 393 subjects originally enrolled in the study, 372 subjects (95%) completed baseline patient-reported outcome questionnaires (200 intervention and 172 control group subjects). The 21 subjects who failed to complete baseline questionnaires were younger than those who completed the baseline questionnaire (age 57.1 vs. 62.6 years; P = 0.029) but did not differ with respect to clinical characteristics (e.g., blood pressure, body mass index, A1c, or duration of diabetes). Several of these individuals (n = 12) remained in other components of the DOVE study despite not completing the patient-reported outcomes component.

A total of 322 subjects (82%) completed 6-month follow-up questionnaires (178 intervention and 144 control group subjects). Of the 50 subjects who did not complete follow-up questionnaires, 31 subjects remained in the study and had clinical data available. The remaining subjects prematurely withdrew from the study (n = 18) or were lost to follow-up (n = 1). Reasons for withdrawing were unavailable for the majority (n = 11) of subjects. One subject moved, one subject died, and the remaining subjects (n = 5) declined to continue participation due to time commitment. There were no statistically significant differences observed on baseline demographic and clinical parameters for completers and the 50 noncompleters.

Baseline differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between patients in the intervention and control region were apparent (Table 1). Differences were also observed on a number of the patient-reported measures with patients in the control region reporting significantly lower baseline satisfaction, overall HUI3 scores, and diabetes-related health beliefs.

A statistically significant and clinically important change in HRQL was seen in the overall HUI3 scores from baseline to the 6-month follow-up (Table 2). After adjusting for baseline differences in demographics and clinical variables, essentially no change was observed in the control group (0.01 [−0.04 to 0.04]), whereas the adjusted change observed in the intervention group was relatively large (0.06 [0.02–0.10]); the difference in change between groups was statistically significant (P = 0.03).

Improvements in all DLF parameters were observed in patients in the intervention region compared with the control region (Table 2). The largest differences in adjusted scores were seen in the beliefs subscale where the intervention regions improved (0.09 [−0.02 to 0.19]) and scores in the control region declined (−0.07 [−0.15 to 0.02]; P = 0.04 between groups). A similar pattern was seen for the self-efficacy, beliefs, and attitudes subscales (Table 2).

Satisfaction with general medical care and diabetes care significantly improved in the intervention region and declined in the control region over the study period (Table 2). The adjusted change in satisfaction with diabetes care (5.27 [1.04–9.51]) was larger than that observed for general satisfaction with care (3.89 [−0.41 to 8.18]) in the intervention region. The intervention was not associated with changes in adherence to any of the four diabetes self-care activities (Table 2).

CONCLUSIONS

We previously reported positive overall trends in improving the quality of clinical care of patients with type 2 diabetes with this provider-level intervention (31). In particular, we observed a statistically significant and clinically important improvement in blood pressure levels in the intervention region, although there was little improvement in cholesterol levels or glycemic control. We also observed trends toward new medication starts in patients in the intervention region. We now report, over the same period of time, significant improvements in a number of patient-reported outcomes. Specifically, in the intervention region, we observed improvements in HRQL and satisfaction with care as well as self-efficacy and attitudes and beliefs toward diabetes.

The change in HRQL over the 6-month study period seen in adjusted HUI3 scores clearly favored the intervention group and exceeded the magnitude of what would be considered clinically important (37,38). Although the HUI3 is not a diabetes-specific measure of HRQL, our previous cross-sectional analyses demonstrated that the HUI3 has discriminative validity in type 2 diabetes (39). Furthermore, the present study was carried out with a control group with adjustments for baseline differences on a number of clinical and demographic variables known to be associated with HRQL, such as education, income, and body mass index (43–45). The presence of a concurrent control group and the ability to adjust our analyses for many potential confounders leads us to conclude that the observed changes in patient-reported outcomes from baseline to follow-up were related to the intervention itself, rather than chance, secular trends, regression toward the mean, or residual confounding.

Satisfaction with general medical care and diabetes care both improved relative to the control region, where satisfaction with care appeared to decline over the same 6-month period. Consistent with the focus of the intervention, it is encouraging to note that the improvement in satisfaction with diabetes care exceeded the improvement with general medical care. It is not clear, however, which aspect of the intervention was associated with change in the satisfaction with diabetes care, given that the intervention was primarily directed at primary care physicians. For example, whereas having access to public lectures on diabetes may have contributed to increased satisfaction with diabetes care, we do not know if patients in the intervention region whose level of satisfaction improved actually attended those lectures. It is possible that greater attention was received as a result of being in the intervention region, which contributed to a perception that care needs were being more fully addressed. Interestingly, in the control region, satisfaction declined during the course of the study. It is possible that this is the natural history of “satisfaction” among rural patients with type 2 diabetes or perhaps the study questionnaires themselves heightened patient awareness of unmet needs in the control region.

There were also small, but statistically significant, improvements in various attitudes and beliefs related to diabetes. It is possible that the intervention induced changes in the practice styles of local providers and that this improved subsequent patient-provider interactions that were perceived by the patients themselves. This conclusion is supported by the concurrent improvements in satisfaction with care in the intervention group described above.

The intervention was not associated with improvements in adherence to various self-care activities. The already high baseline levels of self-reported adherence to certain aspects of the diabetes care regimen, however, may have left little opportunity for improvement. For example, ∼95% of intervention group subjects reported that they took all insulin injections as directed in the prior 7 days. Self-reported adherence to oral medications was lower at 81%. Inaccuracy of self-reported adherence may have also been an issue and may have attenuated any opportunity to observe change over time in the intervention or control group. This lack of change in adherence to the self-care activities is not surprising given that targeted patient level lifestyle interventions are needed to improve adherence (20–21); our intervention (directed at metabolic control and medical management) did not provide this.

Whereas the humanistic outcomes in this study were assessed using a before/after design with concurrent controls, this was not a randomized controlled trial, and some limitations for our findings should be noted. We should point out that the random allocation of the two regions to intervention or control condition was not for the purpose of distributing characteristics equally between groups. The purpose of random allocation was, in part, to determine which health region would receive the intervention in a manner that the regions would view as fair. As well, random allocation was used to reduce threats to internal validity that would be created if allocation to intervention or control conditions was intentionally related to study outcomes. Because of the lack of random patient-level allocation, we could not completely control for all preexisting regional trends that might have existed before the first data collection. Indeed, some baseline differences did exist for a number of demographic and clinical characteristics, with the intervention region tending to be consistently favored. Nevertheless, we controlled for all of the potentially confounding variables that we measured, and this adjustment did not materially affect the direction or magnitude of any of our main results.

Second, our sample was a population-based volunteer cohort rather than a true random sample of the population. There is no mechanism in the province of Alberta that would allow us to identify patients with diabetes and contact them for entry into a study. Recruitment strategies and enrollment were similar in both regions, but there may be concern related to “volunteer bias” or the Hawthorne effect. An enthusiastic and enlightened volunteer sample (independent of the intervention) might be expected to be more knowledgeable, more likely to aggressively seek regular medical care, and have greater HRQL or satisfaction with care. In fact, this type of “volunteer bias” would have biased our results to the null, making it difficult to demonstrate any difference between intervention and control regions. Furthermore, local efforts to involve aboriginal people in the study appear to have been stronger in the control region. This resulted in a larger proportion of aboriginal people in the control group despite the aboriginal population being equally represented in both regions. In general, the intervention region was favored on a number of baseline characteristics such as duration of diabetes, total cholesterol, diastolic blood pressure, and A1c. This finding is not surprising given the fact that aboriginal people in Canada tend to have poorer health than the general population (32).

As a further limitation, the 6-month follow-up period for evaluating changes in humanistic outcomes, particularly HRQL, was relatively short. Nonetheless, if our findings are valid, we might expect even greater changes over a longer time horizon. Lastly, as we examined only two northern rural regions in one province, the results of this study may not be generalizable to the rest of the province or other rural regions.

With these possible threats to validity and limitations in mind, we conclude that a multifaceted provider-level intervention to improve diabetes care in a rural setting was associated with improvements in overall HRQL, satisfaction with care, as well as self-efficacy, beliefs, and attitudes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Interventions such as ours have the potential to improve the quality of diabetes care for patients in rural communities and may provide an alternate means of delivering care in isolated regions. Based on our results and previous systematic reviews (21), we believe that to fully capture the potential benefits (and possible harms) of any intervention strategy directed at patients with diabetes, more attention should be paid to humanistic outcomes.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1—

Baseline characteristics stratified by study group

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2—

Unadjusted and adjusted mean change scores (95% CI) from baseline to 6-month follow-up*

Acknowledgments

Financial support was provided by the Institute of Health Economics and the Canadian Diabetes Association. Drs. Johnson and Majumdar are Population Health Investigators with the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR). Dr. Majumdar is a New Investigator of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Johnson holds a Canada Research Chair in Diabetes Health Outcomes. Ms. Maddigan holds a fulltime Studentship in Health Research with AHFMR. This work was supported by a New Emerging Team (NET) grant to the Alliance for Canadian Health Outcomes Research in Diabetes (ACHORD). The ACHORD NET grant is sponsored by the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, The Kidney Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research-Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism, and Diabetes, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research—Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health.

We would like to thank the health regions that participated in this study for the kind hospitality shown to the research teams during their visits. We would like to also acknowledge the local study coordinators who identified and tracked study subjects and also the subjects themselves. We would also like to acknowledge the support of EPICORE, Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta for data management.

Footnotes

  • T.K.L. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca for speaking engagements.

    A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

    • Accepted February 25, 2004.
    • Received January 6, 2004.
  • DIABETES CARE

References

  1. ↵
    American Diabetes Association: Total expenditures for diabetes in the United States, 1997. Diabetes Care21:296–309, 1998
  2. King H, Aubert RE, Herman WH: Global burden of diabetes, 1995–2025: prevalence, numerical estimates, and projections. Diabetes Care 21:1414–1431, 1998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. Clark CM: How should we respond to the worldwide diabetes epidemic? (Editorial). Diabetes Care 21:475–476, 1998
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Safran MA, Vinicor F: The war against diabetes: how will we know if we are winning? Diabetes Care 22:508–516, 1999
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Intensive blood-glucose control with sulfonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 352:837–853, 1998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 38). Br Med J 317:703–713, 1998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. Pyorala K, Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Faergeman O, Olsson AG, Thorgeirsson G: Cholesterol lowering with simvastatin improves prognosis of diabetic patients with coronary heart disease. Diabetes Care 20:614–620, 1997
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Meltzer S, Leiter L, Daneman D, Gerstein HC, Lau D, Ludwig S, Yale JF, Zinman B, Lillie D: Clinical practice guidelines for the management of diabetes in Canada. Can Med Assoc J 159:S1–S29, 1998
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. Huang ES, Meigs JB, Singer DE: The effect of interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Med 111:633–642, 2002
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  10. Gray A, Raikou M, McGuire A, Fenn P, Stevens R, Cull C, Stratton I, Adler A, Holman R, Turner R: Cost effectiveness of an intensive blood glucose control policy in patients with type 2 diabetes: economic analysis alongside randomized controlled trial (UKPDS 41). Br Med J 320:1373–1378, 2000
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    The CDC Diabetes Cost-Effectiveness Group: Cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic control, intensified hypertension control and serum cholesterol level reduction for type 2 diabetes. JAMA 287:2542–2551, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    Miller CD, Phillips LS, Tate MK, Porwoll JM, Rossman SD, Cronmiller N, Gebhart SS: Meeting American Diabetes Association guidelines in endocrinologist practice. Diabetes Care 23:444–448, 2000
    OpenUrlAbstract
  13. McFarlane AI, Jacober SJ, Winer N, Kaur J, Castro JP, Wui MA, Gliwa A, Gizycki HV, Sowers JR: Control of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with diabetes and hypertension at urban academic medical centers. Diabetes Care 25:718–723, 2002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    Saadine JB, Engelgau MM, Beckles GL, Gregg EW, Thompson TJ, Venkat Narayn KM: A diabetes report card for the United States: quality of care in the 1990s. Ann Intern Med 136:565–574, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    Toth EL, Majumdar SR, Guirguis LM, Lewanczuk RZ, Lee TK, Johnson JA: Compliance with clinical practice guidelines for type 2 diabetes in rural patients: treatment gaps and opportunities for improvement. Pharmacotherapy 23:659–665, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. Yawn BP, Casey M, Hebert P: The rural health care workforce implications of practice guideline implementation. Med Care 37:259–269, 1999
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. Schoepflin HM, Thrailkill KM: Pediatric diabetes management in Appalachian Kentucky: adherence of primary care physicians to ADA guidelines. J Ky Med Assoc 97:473–481, 1999
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. Bell RA, Camacho F, Goonan K, Duren-Winfield V, Anderson RT, Konen JC, Goff DC: Quality of diabetes care among low-income patients in North Carolina. Am J Prev Med 21:124–131, 2001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    Cummings DM, Morrissey S, Barondes MJ, Rogers L, Gutske S: Screening for diabetic retinopathy in rural areas: the potential of telemedicine. J Rural Health 17:25–31, 2001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    Gaede P, Vedel P, Larsen N, Jensen GV, Parving HH, Pedersen O: Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 348:383–393, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    Renders CM, Valk GD, Griffin SJ, Wagner EH, Eijk Van JT, Assendelft WJJ: Interventions to improve the management of diabetes in primary care, outpatient, and community settings. Diabetes Care 24:1821–1833, 2001
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    Watkins KW, Connell CM, Fitzgerald JT, Klem L, Hickey T, Ingersill-Dayton B: Effect of adult’s self-regulation of diabetes on quality-of-life outcomes. Diabetes Care 23:1511–1515, 2000
    OpenUrlAbstract
  23. ↵
    Glasgow RE, Hampson SE, Strycker LA, Ruggiero L: Personal-model beliefs and social-environmental barriers related to diabetes self-management. Diabetes Care 20:556–576, 1997
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. Nuttall FQ, Chasuk RM: Nutrition and the management of type 2 diabetes. J Fam Pract 47 (Suppl. 5):S45–S53, 1997
    OpenUrl
  25. Girva K, Myers LB, Newman S: Illness perceptions and self-efficacy beliefs in adolescents and young adults with insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Psychol Health 15:733–750, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  26. U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients is affected by complications but not by intensive policies to improve blood glucose or blood pressure control (UKPDS 37). Diabetes Care 22:1125–1136, 2000
    OpenUrl
  27. Pill R, Stott NCH, Rollnick SR, Rees M: A randomized controlled trial of an intervention designed to improve the care given in general practice to type 2 diabetic patients: patient outcomes and professional ability to change behaviour. Fam Pract 15:229–233, 1998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. Kinmonth AL, Woodcock A, Griffin S, Spiegal N, Campbell MJ: Randomized controlled trial of patient centred care of diabetes in general practice: impact on current well-being and future disease risk. BMJ 317:1202–1208, 1998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    Sadur CN, Moline N, Costa M, Michalik D, Mendlowitz D, Roller S, Watson R, Swain BE, Selby JV, Javorski WC: Diabetes management in a health maintenance organization. Diabetes Care 22:2011–2017, 1999
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    Majumdar SR, Johnson JA, Guirguis LM, Lewanczuk RZ, Lee TK, Toth EL: A prospective controlled trial of an intervention to improve care for patients with diabetes in rural communities: rationale and design for the DOVE Study. Can J Diabetes Care 25:173–179, 2001
  31. ↵
    Majumdar SR, Guirguis LM, Toth EL, Lewanczuk RZ, Lee TK, Johnson JA: Controlled trial of a multifaceted intervention for improving quality of care for rural patents with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 26:3061–3066, 2003
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    Health Canada: Responding to the challenge of diabetes in Canada: first report of the National Diabetes Surveillance System (NDSS) 2003 [article online], 2003. Available from http://www.NDSS.ca. Accessed 18 February 2004
  33. ↵
    Soumerai SB, Avorn J: Principles of educational outreach (“academic detailing”) to improve clinical decision making. JAMA 263:549–556, 1990
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. Soumerai SB, Majumdar SR, Lipton HL: Evaluating and improving physician prescribing. In Pharmacoepidemiology. Strom B, Ed. Chichester, U.K., John Wiley and Sons, 2000
  35. ↵
    Lundborg CS, Wahlstrom R, Oke T, Tomson G, Diwan VK: Influencing prescribing for urinary tract infection and asthma in primary care in Sweden: a randomized controlled trial of an interactive educational intervention. J Clin Epidemiol 52:801–812, 1999
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW: Multi-attribute health status classification systems: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 7:490–502, 1995
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. ↵
    Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Torrance GW, Goldsmith SH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, Denton M, Boyle M: Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care 40:113–128, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q: Multi-attribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Med Care 34:702–722, 1996
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. ↵
    Maddigan SL, Feeny DH, Johnson JA: Construct validity of the RAND-12 and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and 3 in type 2 diabetes. Qual Life Res 13:435–448, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    Toobert DJ, Hampson SE, Glasgow RE: The summary of diabetes self-care activities measure: results from 7 studies and a revised scale. Diabetes Care 23:943–950, 2000
    OpenUrlAbstract
  41. ↵
    McLeod B: Diabetes Education: New Directions for Program Development. Oakville, ON, Pocket Press, 1997
  42. ↵
    Marshall GN, Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Wells KB: The structure of patient satisfaction with outpatient medical care. Psychol Assess 3:477–483, 1993
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    Evans RG, Barer ML, Marmore TR: Why are some people healthy and others not: the determinants of health of populations. New York, NY, Aldine De Gruyter, 1994
  44. Redekop WK, Koopmanschap MA, Stolk RP, Rutten GEM, Wolffenbuttel BHR, Nielssen LW: Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in Dutch patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 25:458–463, 2002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    Glasgow RE, Ruggiero L, Eakin EG, Dryfoos J, Chobanian L: Quality of life and associated characteristics in a large national sample of adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care 20:562–567, 1997
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 27 (6)

In this Issue

June 2004, 27(6)
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes Associated With an Intervention to Enhance Quality of Care for Rural Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes Associated With an Intervention to Enhance Quality of Care for Rural Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Sheri L. Maddigan, Sumit R. Majumdar, Lisa M. Guirguis, Richard Z. Lewanczuk, T. K. Lee, Ellen L. Toth, Jeffrey A. Johnson
Diabetes Care Jun 2004, 27 (6) 1306-1312; DOI: 10.2337/diacare.27.6.1306

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes Associated With an Intervention to Enhance Quality of Care for Rural Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Sheri L. Maddigan, Sumit R. Majumdar, Lisa M. Guirguis, Richard Z. Lewanczuk, T. K. Lee, Ellen L. Toth, Jeffrey A. Johnson
Diabetes Care Jun 2004, 27 (6) 1306-1312; DOI: 10.2337/diacare.27.6.1306
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
    • Measures
    • Analysis
    • RESULTS
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Suboptimal Use of Cardioprotective Drugs in Newly Treated Elderly Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes
  • Disparities in Diabetes Care Between Smokers and Nonsmokers
  • Diabetic Retinopathy and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease
Show more Epidemiology/Health Services/Psychosocial Research

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.