Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorHernar, Ingvild
dc.contributor.authorGraue, Marit
dc.contributor.authorRichards, David A
dc.contributor.authorStrandberg, Ragnhild Bjarkøy
dc.contributor.authorNilsen, Roy Miodini
dc.contributor.authorRekdal, Magne
dc.contributor.authorLøvaas, Karianne Fjeld
dc.contributor.authorMadsen, Tone Vonheim
dc.contributor.authorTell, Grethe Seppola
dc.contributor.authorHaugstvedt, Anne
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-23T09:20:33Z
dc.date.available2021-04-23T09:20:33Z
dc.date.created2021-04-20T14:12:12Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationHernar, I., Graue, M., Richards, D. A., Strandberg, R. B., Nilsen, R. M., Rekdal, M., Løvaas, K. F., Madsen, T. V., Tell, G. S., & Haugstvedt, A. (2021). Use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical diabetes consultations: the DiaPROM randomised controlled pilot trial. BMJ Open, 11(4).en_US
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2739299
dc.description.abstractObjective To pilot test the proposed DiaPROM trial components and address uncertainties associated with conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate whether such a trial is feasible. Design Two-arm pilot RCT. Participants Adults aged ≥18–39 years, with minimum 1 year type 1 diabetes duration, attending outpatient follow-up. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, severe cognitive, somatic or psychiatric conditions and impaired vision. Randomisation and intervention All participants completed electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) prior to the annual diabetes consultation. Using computer-generated block-randomisation without blinding, we assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio stratified by sex to receive standard care or an intervention. Physicians reviewed diabetes distress scores (Problem Areas In Diabetes scale) and referred individuals with scores ≥30 or single item(s) ≥3 to minimum two diabetes nurse consultations where reported problems were reviewed and discussed. Outcomes Recruitment and retention rates; participants perceptions about intervention components. Variance and estimated between-group differences in follow-up scores (Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), WHO 5-Well-being Index, Perceived Competence for Diabetes Scale and glycaemic control) and DDS correlation with baseline scores, to assist sample size calculations. Results We randomised 80 participants to the control or intervention arm (one participant was later excluded). 23/39 intervention arm participants qualified for additional consultations and 17 attended. 67/79 attended the 12-month follow-up (15.2% attrition); 5/17 referred to additional consultations were lost to follow-up (29.4% attrition). Participants reported PROMs as relevant (84.6%) and acceptable (97.4%) but rated the usefulness of consultations as moderate to low. Baseline mean±SD DDS score was 2.1±0.69; DDS SD was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.86) at follow-up; correlation between baseline and follow-up DDS scores was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7 to 0.9). Conclusions The pilot trial revealed need for intervention modifications ahead of a full-scale trial to evaluate use of PROMs in diabetes consultations. Specifically, participant acceptability and intervention implementation need further investigation.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse-Ikkekommersiell 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectDiabetes støtte til egenmestringen_US
dc.subjectDiabetes self-mangement supporten_US
dc.subjectDiabetesen_US
dc.subjectDiabetesen_US
dc.titleUse of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical diabetes consultations: the DiaPROM randomised controlled pilot trialen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Endokrinologi: 774en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Endocrinology: 774en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Endokrinologi: 774en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Endocrinology: 774en_US
dc.source.volume11en_US
dc.source.journalBMJ Openen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042353
dc.identifier.cristin1905337
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse-Ikkekommersiell 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse-Ikkekommersiell 4.0 Internasjonal