Key result
CHANGE telehealth intervention linked to a ~0.6% A1c drop in Medicaid patients with diabetes.
Why the study?
Does an adapted telehealth cardiovascular disease risk reduction intervention improve A1c and demonstrate feasibility in low-income patients with chronic conditions?
Observational (n=252)
Yes
Does an adapted telehealth cardiovascular disease risk reduction intervention improve A1c and demonstrate feasibility in low-income patients with chronic conditions?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.8% vs 8.4%
p-value: p=0.008
Translating an evidence-based telehealth CVD risk reduction intervention into community-based settings is feasible and can significantly improve glycemic control in vulnerable populations.
May support telehealth CVD risk reduction in Medicaid patients; hypothesis-generating and leaves open need for RCTs before practice change.
Relatively few successful medication adherence interventions are translated into real-world clinical settings. The Prevention of Cardiovascular Outcomes in African Americans with Diabetes (CHANGE) intervention was originally conceived as a randomized controlled trial to improve cardiovascular disease-related medication adherence and health outcomes. The purpose of the study was to describe the translation of the CHANGE trial into two community-based clinical programs. CHANGE 2 was available to Medicaid patients with diabetes and hypertension whose primary care homes were part of a care management network in the Northern Piedmont region of North Carolina. CHANGE 3 was available to low-income patients receiving care in three geographical areas with multiple chronic conditions at low or moderate risk for developing cardiovascular disease. Adaptations were made to ensure fit with available organizational resources and the patient population's health needs. Data available for evaluation are presented. For CHANGE 2, we evaluated improvement in A1c control using paired t test. For both studies, we describe feasibility measured by percentage of patients who completed the curriculum. CHANGE 2 involved 125 participants. CHANGE 3 had 127 participants. In CHANGE 2, 69 participants had A1c measurements at baseline and 12-month follow-up; A1c improved from 8.4 to 7.8 (p = .008). In CHANGE 3, interventionists completed 47% (n = 45) of calls to enroll participants at the 4-month encounter, and among those eligible for a 12-month call (n = 52), 21% of 12-month calls were completed with participants. In CHANGE 2, 40% of participants (n = 50) completed all 12 encounters. Thoughtful adaptation is critical to translate clinical trials into community-based clinic settings. Successful implementation of adapted evidence-based interventions may be feasible and can positively affect patients' disease control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zullig et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular disease risk, diabetes, hypertension (n=252). CHANGE telehealth cardiovascular disease risk reduction intervention vs. Baseline was evaluated on Improvement in A1c control (p=0.008). The adapted CHANGE telehealth intervention significantly improved A1c from 8.4 at baseline to 7.8 at 12 months (p=0.008) among Medicaid patients with diabetes and hypertension.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: