Aims: To analyse the performance of a Shared Decision Making (SDM) intervention, we assessed perceived and experienced SDM in General Practitioners (GPs) and patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM)... Show moreAims: To analyse the performance of a Shared Decision Making (SDM) intervention, we assessed perceived and experienced SDM in General Practitioners (GPs) and patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).Methods: Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial (cRCT) testing the effect of a decision aid. Opinions and experienced role regarding SDM were assessed in 72 patients and 18 GPs with the SDM-Q-9 (range 0-45) and Control Preferences Scale (CPS, 0-5), and observed SDM with the OPTION5 (0-20). SDM at baseline was compared to 24 months' follow-up using paired t-tests.Results: At baseline, perceived levels of SDM did not significantly differ between GPs and patients with T2DM (difference of 2.3, p = 0.24). At follow-up, mean patients' perceived level of SDM was 7.9 lower compared to baseline (p < 0.01), whereas GPs' opinions had not changed significantly. After both visits, mean CPS scores differed significantly between patients and GPs. OPTION5 scores ranged between 6 and 20.Conclusion: Patients and GPs perceived similar baseline levels of SDM. Two years later, patients perceived less SDM, while GPs did not change their opinion. SDM was appropriate immediately after training, but perhaps GPs fell back in old habits over time. We recommend repeated SDM training. Show less
Introduction With increased duration of type 2 diabetes, most people have a growing need of glucose-lowering medication and eventually might require insulin. Presumptive evidence is reported that... Show moreIntroduction With increased duration of type 2 diabetes, most people have a growing need of glucose-lowering medication and eventually might require insulin. Presumptive evidence is reported that early detection (eg, by population-based screening) and treatment of hyperglycemia will postpone the indication for insulin treatment. A treatment legacy effect of population-based screening for type 2 diabetes of about 3 years is estimated. Therefore, we aim to compare insulin prescription and glycemic control in people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes after 10 years with data from people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes seven (treatment legacy effect) and 10 years before during care-as-usual.Research design and methods Three cohorts were compared: one screen-detected cohort with 10 years diabetes duration (Anglo-Danish-Dutch study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary care (ADDITION-NL): n=391) and two care-as-usual cohorts, one with 7-year diabetes duration (Groningen Initiative to Analyze Type 2 Diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) and Zwolle Outpatient Diabetes project Integrating Available Care (ZODIAC): n=4473) and one with 10-year diabetes duration (GIANTT and ZODIAC: n=2660). Insulin prescription (primary outcome) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of people with a known diabetes duration of 7 years or 10 years at the index year 2014 were compared using regression analyses.Results Insulin was prescribed in 10.5% (10-year screen detection), 14.7% (7-year care-as-usual) and 19.0% (10-year care-as-usual). People in the 7-year and 10-year care-as-usual groups had a 1.5 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.1) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.7) higher adjusted odds for getting insulin prescribed than those after screen detection. Lower HbA1c values were found 10 years after screen detection (mean 50.1 mmol/mol (6.7%) vs 51.8 mmol/mol (6.9%) and 52.8 mmol/mol (7.0%)), compared with 7 years and 10 years after care-as-usual (MDadjusted: 1.6 mmol/mol (95% CI 0.6 to 2.6); 0.1% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) and 1.8 mmol/mol (95% CI 0.7 to 2.9); and 0.2% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.3)).Conclusion Population-based screen-detected type 2 diabetes is associated with less need for insulin after 10 years compared with people diagnosed during care-as-usual. Glycemic control was better after screen detection but on average good in all groups. Show less
About 20% of patients with type 2 diabetes achieve all their treatment targets. Shared decision making (SDM) using a support aid based on the 5-years results of the ADDITION study on multifactorial... Show moreAbout 20% of patients with type 2 diabetes achieve all their treatment targets. Shared decision making (SDM) using a support aid based on the 5-years results of the ADDITION study on multifactorial treatment, could increase this proportion.|Cluster-randomized trial in 35 former ADDITION primary care practices. Practices were randomized to SDM or care as usual (1:1). Both ADDITION and non-ADDITION type 2 diabetes patients, 60-80 years, known with diabetes for 8-12 years, were included. In the intervention group, patients were presented evidence about the relationship between treatment intensity and cardiovascular events. They chose intensive or less intensive treatment and prioritized their targets. After 1 year priorities could be rearranged.|24 months. Intention-to-treat analysis.|proportion of patients that achieved all three treatment targets.|At baseline 26.4% in the SDM group (n=72) had already achieved all three treatment goals (CG: 23.5%, n=81). In the SDM group 44 patients chose intensive treatment, 25 continued their former less intensive treatment and three people switched from the more to the less intensive protocol. After 24 months 31.8% of the patients in the SDM group achieved all three treatment targets (CG: 25.3%), RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.81-1.95). Mean systolic blood pressure decreased in the SDM group (-5.4 mm Hg, P<.01), mean HbA1c and total cholesterol did not change.|Despite an already high baseline level of diabetes care, we found strong indications that SDM on both intensity of treatment and prioritizing treatment goals further improved outcomes. Show less
Rodenburg-Vandenbussche, S.; Pieterse, A.H.; Kroonenberg, P.M.; Scholl, I.; Weijden, T. van der; Luyten, G.P.M.; ... ; Stiggelbout, A.M. 2015
No more than 10-15% of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients achieve all treatment goals regarding glycaemic control, lipids and blood pressure. Shared decision making (SDM) should increase that... Show moreNo more than 10-15% of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients achieve all treatment goals regarding glycaemic control, lipids and blood pressure. Shared decision making (SDM) should increase that percentage; however, not all support decision tools are appropriate. Because the ADDITION-Europe study demonstrated two (almost) equally effective treatments but with slightly different intensities, it may be a good starting point to discuss with the patients their diabetes treatment, taking into account both the intensity of treatment, clinical factors and patients' preferences. We aim to evaluate whether such an approach increases the proportion of patients that achieve all three treatment goals.|In a cluster-randomised trial including 40 general practices, that participated until 2009 in the ADDITION Study, 150 T2DM patients 60-80 years, known with T2DM for 8-15 years, will be included. Practices are randomised a second time, i.e. intervention practices in the ADDITION study could be control practices in the current study and vice versa. For the GPs from the intervention group a 2-hour training in SDM was developed as well as a decision support tool to be used during the consultation. GPs plan the first visit with the patients to decide on the intensity of the treatment, personalised targets and the priorities of treatment. The control group will continue with the treatment they were allocated to in the ADDITION study.|24 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who achieve all three treatment goals. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of patients who achieve five treatment goals (HbA1c, blood pressure, total cholesterol, body weight, not smoking), evaluation of the SDM process (SDM-Q9 and CPS), satisfaction with the treatment (DTSQ), wellbeing and quality of life (W-BQ12, ADD QoL-19), health status (SF-36, EQ-5D) and coping (DCMQ). The proportions of achieved treatment goals will be compared between both groups. For the secondary outcomes mixed models will be used. The Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht has approved the study protocol (Protocol number: 11-153).|This trial will provide evidence whether an intervention with a multi-faceted decision support tool increases the proportion of achieved personalised goals in type 2 diabetes patients.|NCT02285881, November 4, 2014. Show less
Ouden, H. den; Vos, R.C.; Reidsma, C.; Rutten, G.E.H.M. 2015
No more than 10-15% of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients achieve all treatment goals regarding glycaemic control, lipids and blood pressure. Shared decision making (SDM) should increase that... Show moreNo more than 10-15% of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients achieve all treatment goals regarding glycaemic control, lipids and blood pressure. Shared decision making (SDM) should increase that percentage; however, not all support decision tools are appropriate. Because the ADDITION-Europe study demonstrated two (almost) equally effective treatments but with slightly different intensities, it may be a good starting point to discuss with the patients their diabetes treatment, taking into account both the intensity of treatment, clinical factors and patients' preferences. We aim to evaluate whether such an approach increases the proportion of patients that achieve all three treatment goals.|In a cluster-randomised trial including 40 general practices, that participated until 2009 in the ADDITION Study, 150 T2DM patients 60-80 years, known with T2DM for 8-15 years, will be included. Practices are randomised a second time, i.e. intervention practices in the ADDITION study could be control practices in the current study and vice versa. For the GPs from the intervention group a 2-hour training in SDM was developed as well as a decision support tool to be used during the consultation. GPs plan the first visit with the patients to decide on the intensity of the treatment, personalised targets and the priorities of treatment. The control group will continue with the treatment they were allocated to in the ADDITION study.|24 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who achieve all three treatment goals. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of patients who achieve five treatment goals (HbA1c, blood pressure, total cholesterol, body weight, not smoking), evaluation of the SDM process (SDM-Q9 and CPS), satisfaction with the treatment (DTSQ), wellbeing and quality of life (W-BQ12, ADD QoL-19), health status (SF-36, EQ-5D) and coping (DCMQ). The proportions of achieved treatment goals will be compared between both groups. For the secondary outcomes mixed models will be used. The Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht has approved the study protocol (Protocol number: 11-153).|This trial will provide evidence whether an intervention with a multi-faceted decision support tool increases the proportion of achieved personalised goals in type 2 diabetes patients.|NCT02285881, November 4, 2014. Show less
