Key result
A group-based behavioral intervention improved patient activation (adjusted mean difference 2.8, P=0.01) but did not improve 1-year CVD risk factor control compared to usual care.
Why the study?
Despite current cardiovascular disease management programs, many patients fail to achieve optimal CVD risk factor control, highlighting the need for new strategies to better activate and engage them.
Does a group-based behavioral intervention improve patient activation, engagement, and CVD risk factor control in patients with uncontrolled CVD risk factors?
RCT (n=647)
parallel, 2-arm
Does a group-based behavioral intervention improve patient activation, engagement, and CVD risk factor control in patients with uncontrolled CVD risk factors?
Mean Difference: 2.8
p-value: p=0.01
A group-based behavioral intervention successfully improved patient activation and engagement but failed to translate into improved cardiovascular risk factor control at 1 year.
Background Despite the success of current cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) management programs, many patients do not achieve optimal control of CVD ‐related risk factors. New strategies are needed to better activate and engage these patients. Methods and Results We conducted a parallel, 2‐arm, randomized controlled trial, CREATE Wellness (Changing Results—Engage and Activate to Enhance Wellness) from February 2015 to September 2017 with 12‐month follow‐up to September 2018. Eligible participants had ≥1 uncontrolled CVD risk factors (hyperlipidemia, hypertension, or diabetes mellitus) for at least 2 years before study enrollment. The control group (n=315) received usual care within an existing CVD population‐based disease management program. The intervention group (n=332) received usual care plus a group‐based behavioral intervention focused on patient activation and engagement. Study outcomes included patient activation and patient‐centered care processes (6 months) and healthcare system engagement, medication adherence, and control of CVD risk factors (12 months). Compared with the control group at follow‐up, the intervention group had greater improvement in patient activation (adjusted mean difference=2.8, P =0.01), patient‐centered care (adjusted mean difference=0.19, P =0.003), and 2 out of 3 measures of healthcare system engagement (eg, secure messages exchanged with a population health manager; adjusted incidence rate ratio=1.7, P =0.01). Intervention and control arms did not differ on improvement in 1‐year CVD risk factor control. Conclusions Further work is needed to more effectively connect increased patient activation and engagement to downstream changes in risk factor control. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 02302612.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iturralde et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in uncontrolled CVD risk factors (n=647). group-based behavioral intervention vs. usual care was evaluated on patient activation (adjusted mean difference 2.8, p=0.01). A group-based behavioral intervention improved patient activation (adjusted mean difference 2.8, P=0.01) but did not improve 1-year CVD risk factor control compared to usual care.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: