Key result
A tailored supportive intervention did not significantly reduce diabetes-related distress at 5 months in patients with Type 2 diabetes and a recent first acute coronary event (P=0.470).
Why the study?
Does a tailored supportive intervention by a diabetes nurse improve diabetes-related distress, well-being, and health status in patients with Type 2 diabetes after a first acute coronary event?
RCT (n=201)
Single-blind
1:1 ratio
Yes
Does a tailored supportive intervention by a diabetes nurse improve diabetes-related distress, well-being, and health status in patients with Type 2 diabetes after a first acute coronary event?
Effect estimate: F = 0.52
Absolute Event Rate: 9% vs 9%
p-value: p=0.470
Does not support routine adoption of tailored supportive interventions post-ACS in T2D; leaves open efficacy in randomized trials.
AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored, supportive intervention strategy in influencing diabetes-related distress, health status, well-being and clinical outcomes in people with Type 2 diabetes shortly after a first acute coronary event. METHODS: People with Type 2 diabetes and a recent first acute coronary event (n = 201) were randomized to the intervention group (three home visits by a diabetes nurse) or the attention control group (one telephone consultation). Outcomes were measured after discharge (baseline) and at 5 months (follow-up) using validated questionnaires for diabetes-related distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes), well-being (WHO Well-Being Index) and health status (Euroqol 5 Dimensions; Euroqol Visual Analogue Scale). ancova was used to analyse change-over-time differences between groups. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 81 participants in the intervention group (66.0 ± 9.3 years, 76% male) and 80 in the control group (65.6 ± 9.4 years, 75% male) participants. Mean diabetes-related distress was low after hospital discharge (intervention group: 8.2 ± 10.1; control group: 9.2 ± 12.4) and did not change after 5 months (intervention group: 9.2 ± 12.4; control group: 9.0 ± 11.2). Baseline well-being was less favourable but improved significantly in the intervention group (baseline: 58.5 ± 28.0; follow-up: 65.5 ± 23.7; P = 0.005), but not in the control group (baseline: 57.5 ± 25.2; follow-up: 59.6 ± 24.4; P = 0.481). Health status also improved in the intervention group (baseline: 69.9 ± 17.3; follow-up: 76.8 ± 15.6; P < 0.001) but not in the control group (baseline: 68.6 ± 15.9; follow-up: 69.9 ± 16.7; P = 0.470). A significant group effect was found for health status (F = 7.9; P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Although the intervention had no effect on diabetes-related distress, this might be at least partially attributable to very low levels of diabetes-related distress at baseline. Interestingly, health status scores and well-being, which were less favourable at baseline, both improved after the tailored support intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kasteleyn et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in Type 2 diabetes after a first acute coronary event (n=201). Tailored supportive intervention (three home visits by a diabetes nurse) vs. Attention control group (one telephone consultation) was evaluated on Diabetes-related distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes [PAID] scale) (F = 0.52, p=0.470). A tailored supportive intervention did not significantly reduce diabetes-related distress at 5 months in patients with Type 2 diabetes and a recent first acute coronary event (P=0.470).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: