scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve Diabetes Care in Socially Disadvantaged Populations

Diabetes Care ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 1675-1688 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. H. Glazier ◽  
J. Bajcar ◽  
N. R. Kennie ◽  
K. Willson
BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacquie Boyang Lu ◽  
Kristin J Danko ◽  
Michael D Elfassy ◽  
Vivian Welch ◽  
Jeremy M Grimshaw ◽  
...  

BackgroundSocially disadvantaged populations carry a disproportionate burden of diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. There is an emerging interest in quality improvement (QI) strategies in the care of patients with diabetes, however, the effect of these interventions on disadvantaged groups remains unclear.ObjectiveThis is a secondary analysis of a systematic review that seeks to examine the extent of equity considerations in diabetes QI studies, specifically quantifying the proportion of studies that target interventions toward disadvantaged populations and conduct analyses on the impact of interventions on disadvantaged groups.Research design and methodsStudies were identified using Medline, HealthStar and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care database. Randomised controlled trials assessing 12 QI strategies targeting health systems, healthcare professionals and/or patients for the management of adult outpatients with diabetes were eligible. The place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupational status, gender/sexual identity, religious affiliations, education level, socioeconomic status, social capital, plus age, disability, sexual preferences and relationships (PROGRESS-Plus) framework was used to identify trials that focused on disadvantaged patient populations, to examine the types of equity-relevant factors that are being considered and to explore temporal trends in equity-relevant diabetes QI trials.ResultsOf the 278 trials that met the inclusion criteria, 95 trials had equity-relevant considerations. These include 64 targeted trials that focused on a disadvantaged population with the aim to improve the health status of that population and 31 general trials that undertook subgroup analyses to assess the extent to which their interventions may have had differential impacts on disadvantaged subgroups. Trials predominantly focused on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and place of residence as potential factors for disadvantage in patients receiving diabetes care.ConclusionsLess than one-third of diabetes QI trials included equity-relevant considerations, limiting the relevance and applicability of their data to disadvantaged populations. There is a need for better data collection, reporting, analysis and interventions on the social determinants of health that may influence the health outcomes of patients with diabetes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42013005165.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. e39437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea C. Tricco ◽  
Erin Lillie ◽  
Charlene Soobiah ◽  
Laure Perrier ◽  
Sharon E. Straus

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 54-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea C. Tricco ◽  
Erin Lillie ◽  
Charlene Soobiah ◽  
Laure Perrier ◽  
Sharon E. Straus

Diabetes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1239-P
Author(s):  
TEJASWI KOMPALA ◽  
MACKENZIE CLARK ◽  
SARAH KIM ◽  
LISA KROON ◽  
THOMAS A. PETERSON ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110203
Author(s):  
Renata W. Yen ◽  
Jenna Smith ◽  
Jaclyn Engel ◽  
Danielle Marie Muscat ◽  
Sian K. Smith ◽  
...  

Background The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied. Purpose To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions. Data Sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs. Study Selection Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations. Data Extraction Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Data Synthesis Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = −9.59; 95% CI −18.94, −0.24 [I2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI −0.22, 0.26 [I2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials. Limitations Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up. Conclusions PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective. [Box: see text]


Author(s):  
Joanna Mitri ◽  
Takehiro Sugiyama ◽  
Hirokazu Tanaka ◽  
Mitsuru Ohsugi ◽  
Robert A. Gabbay

2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682110014
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Martens ◽  
Janet S. Lima ◽  
Elizabeth A. Johnson ◽  
Jessica A. Conry ◽  
Jennifer J. Hoppe ◽  
...  

Background: Quality measures relating to diabetes care in America have not improved between 2005 and 2016, and have plateaued even in areas that outperform national statistics. New approaches to diabetes care and education are needed and are especially important in reaching populations with significant barriers to optimized care. Methods: A pilot quality improvement study was created to optimize diabetes education in a clinic setting with a patient population with significant healthcare barriers. Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (CDCES) were deployed in a team-based model with flexible scheduling and same-day education visits, outside of the traditional framework of diabetes education, specifically targeting practices with underperforming diabetes quality measures, in a clinic setting significantly impacted by social determinants of health. Results: A team-based and flexible diabetes education model decreased hemoglobin A1C for individuals participating in the project (and having a second A1C measured) by an average of −2.3%, improved Minnesota Diabetes Quality Measures (D5) for clinicians participating in the project by 5.8%, optimized use of CDCES, and reduced a high visit fail rate for diabetes education. Conclusions: Diabetes education provided in a team-based and flexible model may better meet patient needs and improve diabetes care metrics, in settings with a patient population with significant barriers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document