General Practice and Primary Care - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/217

Filters

2013 - 2018 2
2
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Author: Audehm, Ralph × Author: Blackberry, Irene × Start date: 2010 × End date: 2019 ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    GP-OSMOTIC trial protocol: an individually randomised controlled trial to determine the effect of retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (r-CGM) on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice
    Furler, J ; O'Neal, DN ; Speight, J ; Blackberry, I ; Manski-Nankervis, J-A ; Thuraisingam, S ; de La Rue, K ; Ginnivan, L ; Browne, JL ; Holmes-Truscott, E ; Khunti, K ; Dalziel, K ; Chiang, J ; Audehm, R ; Kennedy, M ; Clark, M ; Jenkins, AJ ; Liew, D ; Clarke, P ; Best, J (BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2018-09)
    INTRODUCTION: Optimal glycaemia can reduce type 2 diabetes (T2D) complications. Observing retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (r-CGM) patterns may prompt therapeutic changes but evidence for r-CGM use in T2D is limited. We describe the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining intermittent r-CGM use (up to 14 days every three months) in T2D in general practice (GP). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: General Practice Optimising Structured MOnitoring To achieve Improved Clinical Outcomes is a two-arm RCT asking 'does intermittent r-CGM in adults with T2D in primary care improve HbA1c?' PRIMARY OUTCOME: Absolute difference in mean HbA1c at 12 months follow-up between intervention and control arms. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (a) r-CGM per cent time in target (4-10 mmol/L) range, at baseline and 12 months; (b) diabetes-specific distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes). ELIGIBILITY: Aged 18-80 years, T2D for ≥1 year, a (past month) HbA1c>5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%) above their individualised target while prescribed at least two non-insulin hypoglycaemic therapies and/or insulin (therapy stable for the last four months). Our general glycaemic target is 53 mmol/mol (7%) (patients with a history of severe hypoglycaemia or a recorded diagnosis of hypoglycaemia unawareness will have a target of 64 mmol/mol (8%)).Our trial compares r-CGM use and usual care. The r-CGM report summarising daily glucose patterns will be reviewed by GP and patient and inform treatment decisions. Participants in both arms are provided with 1 hour education by a specialist diabetes nurse.The sample (n=150/arm) has 80% power to detect a mean HbA1c difference of 5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%) with an SD of 14.2 (1.3%) and alpha of 0.05 (allowing for 10% clinic and 20% patient attrition). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: University of Melbourne Human Ethics Sub-Committee (ID 1647151.1). Dissemination will be in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a plain-language summary for participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: >ACTRN12616001372471; Pre-results.
  • Item
    No Preview Available
    Effectiveness of general practice based, practice nurse led telephone coaching on glycaemic control of type 2 diabetes: the Patient Engagement And Coaching for Health (PEACH) pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial
    Blackberry, ID ; Furler, JS ; Best, JD ; Chondros, P ; Vale, M ; Walker, C ; Dunning, T ; Segal, L ; Dunbar, J ; Audehm, R ; Liew, D ; Young, D (BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2013-09-18)
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of goal focused telephone coaching by practice nurses in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in Australia. DESIGN: Prospective, cluster randomised controlled trial, with general practices as the unit of randomisation. SETTING: General practices in Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 59 of 69 general practices that agreed to participate recruited sufficient patients and were randomised. Of 829 patients with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >7.5% in the past 12 months) who were assessed for eligibility, 473 (236 from 30 intervention practices and 237 from 29 control practices) agreed to participate. INTERVENTION: Practice nurses from intervention practices received two days of training in a telephone coaching programme, which aimed to deliver eight telephone and one face to face coaching episodes per patient. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was mean absolute change in HbA1c between baseline and 18 months in the intervention group compared with the control group. RESULTS: The intervention and control patients were similar at baseline. None of the practices dropped out over the study period; however, patient attrition rates were 5% in each group (11/236 and 11/237 in the intervention and control group, respectively). The median number of coaching sessions received by the 236 intervention patients was 3 (interquartile range 1-5), of which 25% (58/236) did not receive any coaching sessions. At 18 months' follow-up the effect on glycaemic control did not differ significantly (mean difference 0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.20 to 0.24, P=0.84) between the intervention and control groups, adjusted for HbA1c measured at baseline and the clustering. Other biochemical and clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: A practice nurse led telephone coaching intervention implemented in the real world primary care setting produced comparable outcomes to usual primary care in Australia. The addition of a goal focused coaching role onto the ongoing generalist role of a practice nurse without prescribing rights was found to be ineffective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50662837.