Practice network-based care management for patients with type 2 diabetes and multiple comorbidities (GEDIMAplus): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundCare management interventions in the German health-care system have been evaluated with promising results, but further research is necessary to explore their full potential in the context of multi-morbidity. Our aim in this trial is to assess the efficacy of a primary care practice network–based care management intervention in improving self-care behaviour among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and multiple co-occurring chronic conditions.Methods/DesignThe study is designed as a prospective, 18-month, multicentre, investigator-blinded, two-arm, open-label, individual-level, randomized parallel-group superiority trial. We will enrol 582 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and at least two severe chronic conditions and one informal caregiver per patient. Data will be collected at baseline (T0), at the primary endpoint after 9 months (T1) and at follow-up after 18 months (T2). The primary outcome will be the differences between the intervention and control groups in changes of diabetes-related self-care behaviours from baseline to T1 using a German version of the revised Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA-G). The secondary outcomes will be the differences between the intervention and control groups in: changes in scores on the SDSCA-G subscales, glycosylated haemoglobin A level, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, differences in (severe) symptomatic hypoglycaemia, cost-effectiveness and financial family burden. The intervention will be delivered by trained health-care assistants as an add-on to usual care and will consist of three main elements: (1) three home visits, including structured assessment of medical and social needs; (2) 24 structured telephone monitoring contacts; and (3) self-monitoring of blood glucose levels after T1 in 3-month intervals. The control group will receive usual care. The confirmatory primary analysis will be performed following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. The efficacy of the intervention will be quantified using two-level linear regression stratified by type of medical treatment adjusted for baseline values on the SDSCA-G. Secondary analyses will be performed according to the ITT principle. In health economic evaluations, we will estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.DiscussionWe hope that the results of this study will provide insights into the efficacy of practice network–based care management among patients with complex health-care needs.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN83908315 (ISRCTN assigned 25 February 2014).

[1]  L. Davies ECONOMIC EVALUATION IN CLINICAL TRIALS , 1998 .

[2]  Chad Boult,et al.  Comprehensive primary care for older patients with multiple chronic conditions: "Nobody rushes you through". , 2010, JAMA.

[3]  Jochen Gensichen,et al.  Evaluating self-efficacy for managing chronic disease: psychometric properties of the six-item Self-Efficacy Scale in Germany. , 2013, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[4]  R. Rabin,et al.  EQ-SD: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[5]  J Carpenter,et al.  Bootstrap confidence intervals: when, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Applying clinical epidemiological methods to health equity: the equity effectiveness loop , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  J. Chan,et al.  Co-occurrence of diabetes and depression: conceptual considerations for an emerging global health challenge. , 2012, Journal of affective disorders.

[8]  Martin Fortin,et al.  Managing patients with multimorbidity: systematic review of interventions in primary care and community settings , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  Haejung Lee,et al.  Self-care, Self-efficacy, and Glycemic Control of Koreans With Diabetes Mellitus. , 2009, Asian nursing research.

[10]  Elisabeth Fenwick,et al.  Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation , 2006, BMC Health Services Research.

[11]  B. Starfield,et al.  Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. , 2002, Archives of internal medicine.

[12]  J. Szecsenyi,et al.  Adaptation and psychometric properties of the PACIC short form. , 2012, The American journal of managed care.

[13]  S. Norris,et al.  Effectiveness of self-management training in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. , 2001, Diabetes care.

[14]  M. Knapp,et al.  Client Socio-Demographic and Service Receipt Inventory – European Version: development of an instrument for international research , 2000, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[15]  M. Von Korff,et al.  Case Management for Depression by Health Care Assistants in Small Primary Care Practices , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[16]  J. Szecsenyi,et al.  Primary care practice-based care management for chronically ill patients (PraCMan): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN56104508] , 2011, Trials.

[17]  Richard H Glazier,et al.  A Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve Diabetes Care in Socially Disadvantaged Populations A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances. DOI: 10.2337/dc05-1942 , 2006, Diabetes Care.

[18]  B. Starfield,et al.  Defining Comorbidity: Implications for Understanding Health and Health Services , 2009, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[19]  R. Glasgow,et al.  The summary of diabetes self-care activities measure: results from 7 studies and a revised scale. , 2000, Diabetes care.

[20]  M. Angermeyer,et al.  [German adaptation of the client sociodemographic and service receipt inventory - an instrument for the cost of mental health care]. , 2001, Psychiatrische Praxis.

[21]  Brian T. Austin,et al.  Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. , 2001, Health affairs.

[22]  W. Assendelft,et al.  Interventions to improve the management of diabetes in primary care, outpatient, and community settings: a systematic review. , 2001, Diabetes care.

[23]  H. Neuhauser,et al.  [A basic set of indicators for mapping migrant status. Recommendations for epidemiological practice]. , 2006, Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz.

[24]  T. Rosenthal The Medical Home: Growing Evidence to Support a New Approach to Primary Care , 2008, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine.

[25]  R. Busse Disease management programs in Germany's statutory health insurance system. , 2004, Health affairs.

[26]  Morton B. Brown,et al.  Sustaining short-term improvements over the long-term: results from a 2-year diabetes self-management support (DSMS) intervention. , 2012, Diabetes research and clinical practice.

[27]  R. Colagiuri,et al.  Are current psychometric tools suitable for measuring outcomes of diabetes education? , 2009, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[28]  T. Rosemann,et al.  Case management of arthritis patients in primary care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. , 2007, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[29]  A. Briggs,et al.  Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2002, Health economics.

[30]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. , 2008, JAMA.

[31]  Rafael Perera,et al.  Graphical method for depicting randomised trials of complex interventions , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[32]  C. Yuan,et al.  Evaluation of patient self-management outcomes in health care: a systematic review. , 2010, International nursing review.

[33]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[34]  S. Campbell,et al.  Case management for patients with chronic systolic heart failure in primary care: The HICMan exploratory randomised controlled trial , 2010, Trials.

[35]  P. Rothwell Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation , 2005, The Lancet.

[36]  H. Neuhauser,et al.  Mindestindikatorensatz zur Erfassung des Migrationsstatus , 2006, Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz.

[37]  N. Zethraeus,et al.  Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. , 2000, Health economics.

[38]  T. Bodenheimer,et al.  Care management of patients with complex health care needs. , 2009, The Synthesis project. Research synthesis report.

[39]  L. Bouter,et al.  Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin. , 2005, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[40]  Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinie Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften , 2013 .

[41]  A. Farmer,et al.  Meta-analysis of individual patient data in randomised trials of self monitoring of blood glucose in people with non-insulin treated type 2 diabetes , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[42]  S. Wangberg,et al.  An Internet-based diabetes self-care intervention tailored to self-efficacy. , 2007, Health education research.