IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0147581.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the Efficacy of a Diabetes Education Programme for Type 1 Diabetes (PRIMAS) in a Randomised Controlled Trial Setting and the Effectiveness in a Routine Care Setting: Results of a Comparative Effectiveness Study

Author

Listed:
  • Dominic Ehrmann
  • Nikola Bergis-Jurgan
  • Thomas Haak
  • Bernhard Kulzer
  • Norbert Hermanns

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness of an intervention in clinical practice is often reduced compared to the efficacy demonstrated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). In this comparative effectiveness study, the RCT-proven efficacy of a diabetes education programme for type 1 diabetic patients (PRIMAS) was compared to the effectiveness observed in an implementation trial (IT) under routine care conditions. Methods: 75 patients with type 1 diabetes received PRIMAS through an RCT, whereas 179 patients were observed in an implementation trial. Baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes at the 6-month follow-up (improvement of HbA1c, hypoglycaemia problems, and diabetes-related distress) were compared. Results: At baseline, the type 1 diabetic patients in the RCT had a significant longer diabetes duration (18.7±12.3 vs. 13.8±12.7 yrs., p = .005), lower self-efficacy scores (21.9±4.7 vs. 23.7±6.1, p = .02) and a greater number of diabetes complications (0.8±1.3 vs. 0.4±0.9, p = .02). After 6 months, PRIMAS achieved comparable effects under RCT and implementation trial conditions, as demonstrated by improvement in HbA1c (-0.36%±1.1 vs. -0.37±1.2; Δ -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.31) and hypoglycaemia unawareness (-0.5±1.4 vs. -0.3±1.4; Δ 0.18, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.57). The likelihood of clinical improvement did not depend on the trial setting (RCT vs. IT: OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.33). The participants with worse glycaemic control (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.92), hypoglycaemia problems (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.97) or elevated diabetes distress (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.89) had a better chance of clinical improvement. Conclusions: The effectiveness of PRIMAS under routine care conditions was comparable to the efficacy demonstrated in the RCT. Clinical improvement was independent of the setting in which PRIMAS was evaluated. The PRIMAS education programme for type 1 diabetes can be delivered under conditions of routine care without a loss of effectiveness, compared to its original evaluation in an RCT.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominic Ehrmann & Nikola Bergis-Jurgan & Thomas Haak & Bernhard Kulzer & Norbert Hermanns, 2016. "Comparison of the Efficacy of a Diabetes Education Programme for Type 1 Diabetes (PRIMAS) in a Randomised Controlled Trial Setting and the Effectiveness in a Routine Care Setting: Results of a Compara," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0147581
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147581
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147581
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147581&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0147581?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glasgow, R.E. & Lichtenstein, E. & Marcus, A.C., 2003. "Why Don't We See More Translation of Health Promotion Research to Practice? Rethinking the Efficacy-to-Effectiveness Transition," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(8), pages 1261-1267.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Citlali Calderon & Lorena Carrete & Jorge Vera-Martínez & María Esther Gloria-Quintero & María del Socorro Romero-Figueroa, 2021. "A Social Marketing Intervention to Improve Treatment Adherence in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-14, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gonot-Schoupinsky, Freda N. & Garip, Gulcan, 2019. "A flexible framework for planning and evaluating early-stage health interventions: FRAME-IT," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    2. Emmanuel Njeuhmeli & Melissa Schnure & Andrea Vazzano & Elizabeth Gold & Peter Stegman & Katharine Kripke & Michel Tchuenche & Lori Bollinger & Steven Forsythe & Catherine Hankins, 2019. "Using mathematical modeling to inform health policy: A case study from voluntary medical male circumcision scale-up in eastern and southern Africa and proposed framework for success," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Finch, Caroline F & Day, Lesley & Donaldson, Alex & Segal, Leonie & Harrison, James E, 2009. "Determining policy-relevant formats for the presentation of falls research evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 207-213, December.
    4. Saria Hassan & Alexis Cooke & Haneefa Saleem & Dorothy Mushi & Jessie Mbwambo & Barrot H. Lambdin, 2019. "Evaluating the Integrated Methadone and Anti-Retroviral Therapy Strategy in Tanzania Using the RE-AIM Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, February.
    5. Estabrooks, Carole A. & Norton, Peter & Birdsell, Judy M. & Newton, Mandi S. & Adewale, Adeniyi J. & Thornley, Richard, 2008. "Knowledge translation and research careers: Mode I and Mode II activity among health researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1066-1078, July.
    6. Natalie Bradford & Shirley Chambers & Adrienne Hudson & Jacqui Jauncey‐Cooke & Robyn Penny & Carol Windsor & Patsy Yates, 2019. "Evaluation frameworks in health services: An integrative review of use, attributes and elements," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(13-14), pages 2486-2498, July.
    7. Chen, Huey T., 2010. "The bottom-up approach to integrative validity: A new perspective for program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 205-214, August.
    8. Rieckmann, Traci R. & Kovas, Anne E. & Cassidy, Elaine F. & McCarty, Dennis, 2011. "Employing policy and purchasing levers to increase the use of evidence-based practices in community-based substance abuse treatment settings: Reports from single state authorities," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 366-374, November.
    9. Holly Blake & Betsy Lai & Emil Coman & Jonathan Houdmont & Amanda Griffiths, 2019. "Move-It: A Cluster-Randomised Digital Worksite Exercise Intervention in China: Outcome and Process Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-23, September.
    10. Tabia Henry Akintobi & Payam Sheikhattari & Emma Shaffer & Christina L. Evans & Kathryn L. Braun & Angela U. Sy & Bibiana Mancera & Adriana Campa & Stephania T. Miller & Daniel Sarpong & Rhonda Hollid, 2021. "Community Engagement Practices at Research Centers in U.S. Minority Institutions: Priority Populations and Innovative Approaches to Advancing Health Disparities Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-14, June.
    11. Bradley MacDonald & Xanne Janssen & Alison Kirk & Mhairi Patience & Ann-Marie Gibson, 2018. "An Integrative, Systematic Review Exploring the Research, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of Interventions to Reduce Sedentary Behaviour in Office Workers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-29, December.
    12. Katrien De Cocker & Greet Cardon & Jason A. Bennie & Tracy Kolbe-Alexander & Femke De Meester & Corneel Vandelanotte, 2018. "From Evidence-Based Research to Practice-Based Evidence: Disseminating a Web-Based Computer-Tailored Workplace Sitting Intervention through a Health Promotion Organisation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    13. Frank Puga & Kathleen R. Stevens & Darpan I. Patel, 2013. "Adopting Best Practices from Team Science in a Healthcare Improvement Research Network: The Impact on Dissemination and Implementation," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2013, pages 1-7, March.
    14. Adams, Katherine P. & Vosti, Stephen A. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Ayifah, Emmanuel, 2011. "Integrating Economic Analysis with a Randomized Controlled Trial: Willingness-to-Pay for a New Maternal Nutrient Supplement," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103793, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Leah N. Vermont & Christina Kasprzak & Anne Lally & Alicia Claudio & Laurene Tumiel-Berhalter & Lindsey Haynes-Maslow & Alice Ammerman & Samina Raja & Lucia A. Leone, 2022. "A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Research-Tested Mobile Produce Market Model Designed to Improve Diet in Under-Resourced Communities: Rationale and Design for the Veggie Van Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-11, August.
    16. Eileen V Pitpitan & Shirley J Semple & Gregory A Aarons & Lawrence A Palinkas & Claudia V Chavarin & Doroteo V Mendoza & Carlos Magis-Rodriguez & Hugo Staines & Thomas L Patterson, 2018. "Factors associated with program effectiveness in the implementation of a sexual risk reduction intervention for female sex workers across Mexico: Results from a randomized trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Ditte Marie Bruun & Eik Bjerre & Peter Krustrup & Klaus Brasso & Christoffer Johansen & Mikael Rørth & Julie Midtgaard, 2014. "Community-Based Recreational Football: A Novel Approach to Promote Physical Activity and Quality of Life in Prostate Cancer Survivors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, May.
    18. Harriet Koorts & Adrian Bauman & Nancy Edwards & William Bellew & Wendy J. Brown & Mitch J. Duncan & David R. Lubans & Andrew J. Milat & Philip J. Morgan & Nicole Nathan & Andrew Searles & Karen Lee &, 2022. "Tensions and Paradoxes of Scaling Up: A Critical Reflection on Physical Activity Promotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-16, November.
    19. Chen, Huey T., 2016. "Interfacing theories of program with theories of evaluation for advancing evaluation practice: Reductionism, systems thinking, and pragmatic synthesis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 109-118.
    20. Hutto, Brent & Saunders, Ruth P. & Wilcox, Sara & Jake-Schoffman, Danielle E. & Bernhart, John A. & Dunn, Caroline G. & Kaczynski, Andrew T. & James, Katherine L., 2021. "Pathways of influences leading to adoption of the Faith, Activity and Nutrition (FAN) program in a statewide initiative," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0147581. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.