Skip to content

Impact of an Interprofessional Shared Decision-making and Goal-setting Decision Aid for Patients With Diabetes

Impact of an Interprofessional Shared Decision-making and Goal-setting Decision Aid for Patients With Diabetes - A Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02379078
Enrollment
225
Registered
2015-03-04
Start date
2016-03-31
Completion date
2019-12-31
Last updated
2020-12-10

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Diabetes Mellitus

Keywords

Shared decision-making, Priority setting, Patient decision aid, Interprofessional care, Diabetes mellitus, Patient education, Medical informatics, Toolkit development, Study protocol, User-centred design, Qualitative methods

Brief summary

Diabetes care is complicated for people with diabetes as well as for health care providers: they have to watch their diet, exercise, take medications, checking blood sugars and blood pressure, get tests and see multiple doctors. On top of that, many with diabetes have other health problems, such as high blood pressure or arthritis, that make care even more complicated. Guidelines for improving the care of people with diabetes try to help by summarizing the best practices for care, but because diabetes care is so complicated, it is hard for them to be put into practice. One solution to this is a tool that can help people with diabetes set health care goals that are important to them, and participate actively in decisions about their own health care, together with health care providers. This tool would have an information booklet for patients with facts that can help them make a decision, a worksheet to help spell out what their goals are and how they want to get there, and a cheat-sheet for health care providers that gives them tips on how to do this. The purpose of this project is to find out if a tool like this would be helpful, how to make it more helpful and usable, and what the best way would be to make sure that people use it. An interprofessional (IP) shared decision-making (SDM) and goal-setting tool kit, including a 1-page provider enabler, a point-of-care worksheet and a patient workbook, can be implemented successfully in clinical practice and will reduce decisional conflict and diabetes distress and improve chronic care delivery and quality of life in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and 2 other comorbid chronic diseases. The investigators hypothesize that patients in the intervention arm of the study will have reduced decisional conflict and diabetes distress, and improved decision-making satisfaction, chronic care delivery and quality of life.

Detailed description

Significance: Diabetes is prevalent and results in major morbidity. Care of the patient with diabetes is complex and often occurs in the context of other chronic illness; this multimorbidity negatively impacts morbidity and mortality. The Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) are a rigorously developed knowledge tool that comprehensively address all aspects of diabetes care, conforming to AGREE II standards for guideline development. However, guideline adherence in the patient with multimorbidity is challenging both for the provider and the patient, who are overwhelmed by numerous, often conflicting recommendations. An individualized approach to the multimorbid diabetic patient using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting may overcome challenges to guideline adherence; however these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice. Barriers to uptake can be overcome by incorporating SDM into the context of interprofessional care: in diabetes care, role expansion, active participation by more than one discipline and adding additional team members have been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes. While SDM and decision aids have typically focused on one issue, the precedent and potential exists for their use in the translation of the CDA CPG into practice through the prioritization of complex guideline recommendations. Given the growing prevalence of diabetes and multimorbidity in Canada, effectively bridging the knowledge to practice gap in this area has the potential to significantly improve patient-important outcomes, health care delivery and system sustainability. Objectives: 1. To enhance the implementation of a complex guidelines document (CDA 2013 CPG) by assisting in prioritizing care for patients with diabetes and multiple other comorbidities through the use of a diabetes-focused SDM intervention; 2. To systematically develop, test and pilot a SDM and goal-setting intervention following the United Kingdom Medical Research Council and Knowledge to Action Frameworks; 3. To build a team consisting of members of the research community, patients, health care providers, CDA, and Local Health Integration Networks of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, in order to increase the relevance of research conducted and enable dissemination of these research results into practice. Hypothesis An interprofessional SDM and goal-setting tool kit, including a 1-page provider enabler, a point-of-care worksheet and a patient workbook, can be implemented successfully in clinical practice and will reduce decisional conflict and diabetes distress and improve chronic care delivery and quality of life in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and 2 other comorbid chronic diseases. Research Plan Development, testing and refinement: An evidence-based multi-component SDM intervention will be developed, framed by the Interprofessional SDM Model and based on user input from individual interviews regarding feasibility, acceptability and mediators of use. Usability testing will be done using cognitive task analysis to assess paths users take to accomplish tasks, errors made, when and where they encountered confusion or frustration, degree of satisfaction and quality of decision support. Based on feedback received, the tool will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. Pilot trial: The tool kit will be piloted in a two-step parallel clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) whose primary purpose is to assess intervention fidelity and to test the feasibility of conducting a larger RCT. The first step will be a provider-directed phase; the second step (which will occur 6 months later) will be a provider- and patient-directed phase. A secondary purpose of this study is to estimate the impact of the decision aid on decisional conflict; secondary outcomes include diabetes distress, chronic illness care and quality of life, assessed by patient-completed questionnaires of validated scales at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Analysis will be done by intention to treat. Multilevel hierarchical regression models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data.

Interventions

OTHERShared decision-making aid

The IP-SDM toolkit consists of an online shared decision-making aid, 1-page provider enabler, a provider training video,1-page patient enabler, and a patient training video.

OTHERGeneric hard copy diabetes resources

A hard copy of the executive summary of the CDA CPG and postcard outlining online resources, CDA patient education pamphlet

OTHERGeneric online diabetes resources

Provider- and patient-directed guideline dissemination tools (not incorporating SDM) publicly accessible from the CDA website

Sponsors

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
CollaboratorOTHER_GOV
Unity Health Toronto
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* diagnosis of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes and * have 2 or more other chronic comorbidities

Exclusion criteria

* do not speak English * have documented cognitive deficits * unable to give informed consent * have limited life expectancy (\<1 year) * not available for follow-up * seen primarily by a resident physician * are pregnant or considering conception

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Decisional Conflict in Patients With DiabetesThis outcome is measured at 0, 6 and 12 months.Decisional conflict was chosen to allow us to assess the impact of our decision aid on the quality of the decision-making process, an important first measure of the effectiveness of a decision aid and the shared decision making process. This outcome is assessed by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), a well-validated, patient-completed measure. DCS consists of 16 items, with 5 subscales (informed, values clarity, support, uncertainty, and effective decision) and an overall summary score. IT is scored on a 5-item Likert scale ranging from '0- strongly agree' to '4- strongly disagree'. It's minimum total score is 0 and it's maximum total score is 100. The higher the score, the worse the outcome. The lower the score, the better the outcome.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Patient With Diabetes' Assessment of Their Chronic Illness CareThis outcome is measured at 0, 6 and 12 months.This outcome was selected because it is a direct measure of knowledge use by patients that will allow us to better understand mediating variables of knowledge use such as patient activation, goal-setting, problem-solving, and decision support. This outcome is assessed by the Patient Assessment of Care for Chronic Conditions (PACIC), a well-validated patient-completed questionnaire. PACIC includes 20 items, scored on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from '1 - None of the time' to '5 - Always'. PACIC consists of 5 sub-scales (patient activation, delivery system design, goal setting, problem solving, and follow-up/coordination) and an overall summary score. The minimum total score is 0 and the maximum total score is 50. A higher score indicates a better outcome.
Diabetes Distress in Patients With DiabetesThis outcome is measured at 0, 6 and 12 months.This outcome was selected because it is a direct measure of knowledge use by patients that will allow us to better understand mediating variables of knowledge use such as patient activation, goal-setting, problem-solving, and decision support. This outcome is assessed by the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), a well-validated, patient-completed questionnaire. The DDS is a 17-item scale with 4 subscales (emotional burden, regimen distress, interpersonal distress and physician distress) with an overall summary score. It is scored on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from '1 - no problem' to '6 - serious problem'. It's minimum total score is 0 and it's maximum total score is 6. The higher the score, the worse the outcome. The lower the score, the better the outcome.
Health-related Quality of Life in Patients With DiabetesThis outcome is measured at 0, 6 and 12 months.Quality of life was selected to inform future sample size calculations, as more holistic and patient-centred measure of knowledge use that uniquely acknowledges patient prioritization of health care goals. This outcome is assessed by the Short Form 12 (SF-12), a well-validated, patient-completed questionnaire. The SF-12 consists of 12 items (minimum score is 0 and maximum score is 100; the higher the score, the better the quality of life.)
Intention to Engage in Shared Decision-making in Health Care ProvidersThis outcome is measured at 0, 6 and 12 months.This outcome is assessed by the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Reaction Questionnaire, a theory-based instrument to assess the impact of continuing professional development on clinical behavioral intentions. This outcome was selected to assess provider's intention to engage in shared decision-making, as a potential facilitator or barrier to shared decision-making. The CPD Reaction Questionnaire consists of 12 items with 5 subscales (intention, social influence, beliefs about capabilities, moral norm, and beliefs about consequences) and is scored on a 7-point Likert scale. It's minimum score is 1 and it's maximum score is 7. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Shared Decision-making Aid
At study start (step 1: provider-directed intervention phase): Online shared decision-making aid, 1-page provider enabler, provider training video made available to health care providers At 6 months (step 2: provider- and patient-directed phase): Online shared decision-making aid, 1-page patient enabler, patient training video also made available to patients (in addition to health care providers) Shared decision-making aid: The IP-SDM toolkit consists of an online shared decision-making aid, 1-page provider enabler, a provider training video,1-page patient enabler, and a patient training video. Generic online diabetes resources: Provider- and patient-directed guideline dissemination tools (not incorporating SDM) publicly accessible from the CDA website
102
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes Resources
At study start (step 1: Provider-directed intervention phase): A hard copy of the executive summary of the CDA CPG and postcard outlining online resources made available to health care providers At 6 months (step 2: provider- and patient-directed phase): A CDA patient education pamphlet regarding diabetes self-management also made available to patients In addition, provider- and patient-directed guideline dissemination tools (not incorporating SDM) will also be publicly accessible from the CDA website. Generic hard copy diabetes resources: A hard copy of the executive summary of the CDA CPG and postcard outlining online resources, CDA patient education pamphlet Generic online diabetes resources: Provider- and patient-directed guideline dissemination tools (not incorporating SDM) publicly accessible from the CDA website
111
Total213

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up3330
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject65

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicShared Decision-making AidGeneric Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesTotal
Age, Customized
Age
18-44 years
2 Participants7 Participants9 Participants
Age, Customized
Age
45-54 years
11 Participants9 Participants20 Participants
Age, Customized
Age
55-64 years
20 Participants28 Participants48 Participants
Age, Customized
Age
65-74 years
47 Participants38 Participants85 Participants
Age, Customized
Age
75-84 years
16 Participants24 Participants40 Participants
Age, Customized
Age
85+ years
4 Participants5 Participants9 Participants
Age, Customized
Age
Undisclosed
2 Participants0 Participants2 Participants
Education
Bachelor
23 Participants17 Participants40 Participants
Education
Below Bachelor
3 Participants5 Participants8 Participants
Education
Below High School
11 Participants15 Participants26 Participants
Education
College
30 Participants26 Participants56 Participants
Education
High School
19 Participants31 Participants50 Participants
Education
Post-Grad
13 Participants12 Participants25 Participants
Education
Undisclosed
3 Participants5 Participants8 Participants
Employment
Full/part time without employee health benefits
8 Participants8 Participants16 Participants
Employment
Full time with employee health benefits
22 Participants15 Participants37 Participants
Employment
Government assistance/disability
3 Participants6 Participants9 Participants
Employment
Other
7 Participants4 Participants11 Participants
Employment
Prefer not to answer
0 Participants2 Participants2 Participants
Employment
Retired
54 Participants63 Participants117 Participants
Employment
Stay at home parent, student or volunteer
2 Participants5 Participants7 Participants
Employment
Undisclosed
4 Participants3 Participants7 Participants
Employment
Unemployed
2 Participants5 Participants7 Participants
Income
$100k-$149k
8 Participants7 Participants15 Participants
Income
$10-$19k
6 Participants18 Participants24 Participants
Income
$20-$29k
5 Participants8 Participants13 Participants
Income
$30-$39k
7 Participants13 Participants20 Participants
Income
$40-$49k
7 Participants10 Participants17 Participants
Income
$50-$59k
5 Participants8 Participants13 Participants
Income
$60-$69k
6 Participants3 Participants9 Participants
Income
$70-$79k
6 Participants6 Participants12 Participants
Income
$80-$89k
6 Participants2 Participants8 Participants
Income
$90-$99k
6 Participants8 Participants14 Participants
Income
Less than $10k
6 Participants9 Participants15 Participants
Income
More than $150k
11 Participants11 Participants22 Participants
Income
Undisclosed
23 Participants8 Participants31 Participants
Language
English
81 Participants103 Participants184 Participants
Language
Other
19 Participants8 Participants27 Participants
Language
Undisclosed
2 Participants0 Participants2 Participants
Living Arrangements
Alone
26 Participants30 Participants56 Participants
Living Arrangements
Other
6 Participants8 Participants14 Participants
Living Arrangements
Undisclosed
1 Participants1 Participants2 Participants
Living Arrangements
With family members
28 Participants24 Participants52 Participants
Living Arrangements
With partner/spouse
38 Participants46 Participants84 Participants
Living Arrangements
With roommates
3 Participants2 Participants5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity
Aboriginal
4 Participants3 Participants7 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity
Asian
19 Participants8 Participants27 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity
Black/African
5 Participants8 Participants13 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity
Latin American
1 Participants2 Participants3 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity
Other
7 Participants15 Participants22 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity
Undisclosed
4 Participants0 Participants4 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity
White/Caucasian
62 Participants75 Participants137 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex at Birth
Female
56 Participants46 Participants102 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex at Birth
Male
46 Participants65 Participants111 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex at Birth
Undisclosed
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 1020 / 111
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 1020 / 111
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 1020 / 111

Outcome results

Primary

Decisional Conflict in Patients With Diabetes

Decisional conflict was chosen to allow us to assess the impact of our decision aid on the quality of the decision-making process, an important first measure of the effectiveness of a decision aid and the shared decision making process. This outcome is assessed by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), a well-validated, patient-completed measure. DCS consists of 16 items, with 5 subscales (informed, values clarity, support, uncertainty, and effective decision) and an overall summary score. IT is scored on a 5-item Likert scale ranging from '0- strongly agree' to '4- strongly disagree'. It's minimum total score is 0 and it's maximum total score is 100. The higher the score, the worse the outcome. The lower the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: This outcome is measured at 0, 6 and 12 months.

Population: Patients with diabetes and 2 or more comorbidities.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Shared Decision-making AidDecisional Conflict in Patients With DiabetesBaseline25.53 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.73
Shared Decision-making AidDecisional Conflict in Patients With Diabetes6 months21.97 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.87
Shared Decision-making AidDecisional Conflict in Patients With Diabetes12 months17.35 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.21
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesDecisional Conflict in Patients With DiabetesBaseline23.56 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesDecisional Conflict in Patients With Diabetes6 months21.10 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.79
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesDecisional Conflict in Patients With Diabetes12 months19.58 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.11
p-value: 0.0246Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Diabetes Distress in Patients With Diabetes

This outcome was selected because it is a direct measure of knowledge use by patients that will allow us to better understand mediating variables of knowledge use such as patient activation, goal-setting, problem-solving, and decision support. This outcome is assessed by the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), a well-validated, patient-completed questionnaire. The DDS is a 17-item scale with 4 subscales (emotional burden, regimen distress, interpersonal distress and physician distress) with an overall summary score. It is scored on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from '1 - no problem' to '6 - serious problem'. It's minimum total score is 0 and it's maximum total score is 6. The higher the score, the worse the outcome. The lower the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: This outcome is measured at 0, 6 and 12 months.

Population: Patients with diabetes and 2 or more comorbidities.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Shared Decision-making AidDiabetes Distress in Patients With DiabetesBaseline2.08 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.02
Shared Decision-making AidDiabetes Distress in Patients With Diabetes6 months1.92 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.09
Shared Decision-making AidDiabetes Distress in Patients With Diabetes12 months1.86 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.87
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesDiabetes Distress in Patients With DiabetesBaseline1.93 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.83
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesDiabetes Distress in Patients With Diabetes6 months1.88 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.78
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesDiabetes Distress in Patients With Diabetes12 months1.90 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.75
p-value: 0.12Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Health-related Quality of Life in Patients With Diabetes

Quality of life was selected to inform future sample size calculations, as more holistic and patient-centred measure of knowledge use that uniquely acknowledges patient prioritization of health care goals. This outcome is assessed by the Short Form 12 (SF-12), a well-validated, patient-completed questionnaire. The SF-12 consists of 12 items (minimum score is 0 and maximum score is 100; the higher the score, the better the quality of life.)

Time frame: This outcome is measured at 0, 6 and 12 months.

Population: Patients with diabetes and 2 or more comorbidities.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Shared Decision-making AidHealth-related Quality of Life in Patients With DiabetesBaseline87.35 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.25
Shared Decision-making AidHealth-related Quality of Life in Patients With Diabetes6 months88.88 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.56
Shared Decision-making AidHealth-related Quality of Life in Patients With Diabetes12 months87.94 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.87
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesHealth-related Quality of Life in Patients With DiabetesBaseline89.69 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.48
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesHealth-related Quality of Life in Patients With Diabetes6 months87.77 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.87
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesHealth-related Quality of Life in Patients With Diabetes12 months86.99 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.69
p-value: 0.468Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Intention to Engage in Shared Decision-making in Health Care Providers

This outcome is assessed by the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Reaction Questionnaire, a theory-based instrument to assess the impact of continuing professional development on clinical behavioral intentions. This outcome was selected to assess provider's intention to engage in shared decision-making, as a potential facilitator or barrier to shared decision-making. The CPD Reaction Questionnaire consists of 12 items with 5 subscales (intention, social influence, beliefs about capabilities, moral norm, and beliefs about consequences) and is scored on a 7-point Likert scale. It's minimum score is 1 and it's maximum score is 7. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: This outcome is measured at 0, 6 and 12 months.

Population: Clinicians

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Shared Decision-making AidIntention to Engage in Shared Decision-making in Health Care ProvidersBaseline6.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
Shared Decision-making AidIntention to Engage in Shared Decision-making in Health Care Providers6 months6.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.8
Shared Decision-making AidIntention to Engage in Shared Decision-making in Health Care Providers12 months5.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.4
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesIntention to Engage in Shared Decision-making in Health Care ProvidersBaseline6.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesIntention to Engage in Shared Decision-making in Health Care Providers6 months6.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesIntention to Engage in Shared Decision-making in Health Care Providers12 months6.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
p-value: 0.6ANOVA
Secondary

Patient With Diabetes' Assessment of Their Chronic Illness Care

This outcome was selected because it is a direct measure of knowledge use by patients that will allow us to better understand mediating variables of knowledge use such as patient activation, goal-setting, problem-solving, and decision support. This outcome is assessed by the Patient Assessment of Care for Chronic Conditions (PACIC), a well-validated patient-completed questionnaire. PACIC includes 20 items, scored on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from '1 - None of the time' to '5 - Always'. PACIC consists of 5 sub-scales (patient activation, delivery system design, goal setting, problem solving, and follow-up/coordination) and an overall summary score. The minimum total score is 0 and the maximum total score is 50. A higher score indicates a better outcome.

Time frame: This outcome is measured at 0, 6 and 12 months.

Population: Patients with diabetes and 2 or more comorbidities.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Shared Decision-making AidPatient With Diabetes' Assessment of Their Chronic Illness CareBaseline2.82 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Shared Decision-making AidPatient With Diabetes' Assessment of Their Chronic Illness Care6 months3.16 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Shared Decision-making AidPatient With Diabetes' Assessment of Their Chronic Illness Care12 months3.68 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.99
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesPatient With Diabetes' Assessment of Their Chronic Illness CareBaseline3.16 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.95
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesPatient With Diabetes' Assessment of Their Chronic Illness Care6 months3.41 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.05
Generic Hard-copy Diabetes ResourcesPatient With Diabetes' Assessment of Their Chronic Illness Care12 months3.22 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.08
p-value: <0.0001Mixed Models Analysis

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 17, 2026