|
 |
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Diabetes Care 31:402-407, 2008
DOI: 10.2337/dc07-0744
© 2008 by the American Diabetes Association
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition/Psychosocial Research |
Short-Term Effects of an Educational Program on Health-Seeking Behavior for Infections in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
A randomized controlled intervention trial in primary care
From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Prof. G.E.H.M. Rutten, Str. HP 6.131, UMC Utrecht, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, Netherlands. E-mail: g.e.h.m.rutten{at}umcutrecht.nl
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONRESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--RESULTS--CONCLUSIONS--References |
|---|
OBJECTIVE—The aim of this study was to assess the short-term effects of an educational program on (determinants of) self-reported health-seeking behavior for infections of the urinary tract (UTIs) and lower respiratory tract (LRTIs) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—In a randomized controlled trial, 1,124 patients with type 2 diabetes aged between 44 and 85 years participated. The intervention consisted of a multifaceted educational program with an interactive meeting, a leaflet, a Web site, and a consultation with the diabetes care provider. The program focused on the needs of patients, apparent from a prior focus group and questionnaire study. The primary outcome measure was an indicator of health-seeking behavior for UTIs and LRTIs, defined as the proportion of participants with a positive score on at least seven of nine determinants, six from the Health Belief Model and the additional three domains of knowledge, need for information, and intention. The primary outcome was measured with questionnaires at baseline and after 5 months.
RESULTS—Complete outcome data were available for 468 intervention group patients and 472 control group patients. In all, 68% of the intervention group patients attended the meeting. At baseline, 28% of the participants from the intervention group had a positive score on seven of the nine determinants, compared with 27% from the control group. After the educational program, these percentages were 53 and 32%, respectively (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS—Our educational program positively influenced determinants of health-seeking behavior for common infections in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Abbreviations: GP, general practitioner • ITT, intention to treat • LRTI, lower respiratory tract infection • UTI, urinary tract infection
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONRESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--RESULTS--CONCLUSIONS--References |
|---|
Diabetes and community-acquired infections are causes of considerable morbidity and mortality. For example, acute respiratory tract infections are the most frequent cause of death among elderly individuals and very young children and urinary tract infections (UTIs) are an exceedingly common outpatient problem, especially in women (1–3). Patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of UTIs and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) (4–8). Also, common infections in these patients may be more difficult to treat, often recur and even require hospitalization, and result in increased mortality (9–12). There are few data about the link between health-seeking behavior and morbidity in people with diabetes (13,14). We assume that a delay in health-seeking behavior will increase the risk of complicated infections. On the basis of this assumption and on the results of focus group interviews and questionnaires, we developed, in a previous collaboration with the Dutch Diabetes Patient Association and Municipal Health Services, a multifaceted educational program on infections for people with type 2 diabetes. The most important part of the program, an educational meeting for patients with type 2 diabetes, was based on the Health Belief Model. This model includes six domains—perceived susceptibility and severity, perceived barriers and benefits, social support (cues to action), and self-efficacy—and has proven to be valid for evaluating health behavior (15). The aim of this study was to assess the short-term effects of an educational program on (determinants of) self-reported health-seeking behavior for UTIs and LRTIs in patients with type 2 diabetes. We primarily hypothesized that the program would positively affect determinants of health-seeking behavior in cases of UTIs and LRTIs in type 2 diabetic patients (hypothesis 1). Further, we hypothesized that such an intervention could improve actual health-seeking behavior in such cases (hypothesis 2). We further explored potential differences in effects among the group of patients at high risk for complications and among patients with a lower educational level.
|
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS— |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONRESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--RESULTS--CONCLUSIONS--References |
|---|
We recruited 101 general practitioners (GPs) in four regional Municipal Health Services: one in the north, one in the east, and two in the south of the Netherlands, covering 2.7 million people in total. All patients with type 2 diabetes between the ages of 44 and 85 were eligible for inclusion in this study; participating GPs sent a recruitment letter to 30 randomly selected eligible patients from their practices. Patients not able to attend a meeting because of immobility, and individuals with insufficient knowledge of the Dutch language were excluded.
Development of the intervention
In a previous collaboration with the Dutch Diabetes Patient Association and the Municipal Health Services, we developed an educational program targeted to type 2 diabetic patients. The unpublished methods and data guiding the development of this intervention are included in online appendix 1 (available at http://www.juliuscenter.nl/appendix_venmans_et_al.pdf). The final program consisted of an invitational letter for a meeting (which contained questions as a first "cue" for patients to think about infections), an interactive meeting, a patient information leaflet, a consultation with the diabetes care provider, a Web site, and a newsletter. For the design of the meeting, the domains of the Health Belief Model (15) were used and the domains of knowledge, need for information, and intention were three supplementary domains studied. We addressed a total of nine determinants of health-seeking behavior. Patients who were not able to attend a meeting received written information at their home address with the same content as that discussed during the meetings. Intervention tools and recruitment letters are given in online appendix 2.
Randomization
Practices were randomly assigned to an intervention or a control group. Both care providers and their enlisted patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to the same group. We used block randomization, taking into account the region where the practice was located and the size of the practice (single-handed versus group practice). The control group did not receive any intervention.
Implementation of the intervention
Before the implementation of the intervention, all patient educators received standardized training, and the patient information leaflet and material content of the educational meeting were carefully pilot tested in small samples of patients from the target group before the main intervention. The intervention was implemented in October 2005 with the invitation to participate in the 2-h educational meeting. Partners were also invited to attend. A total of 22 local meetings were held throughout the health regions (six in three regions and four in the remaining region), and all meetings were held within 3 weeks of each other. The average participation rate was 68%. In the Netherlands, type 2 diabetic patients visit their diabetes care provider four times a year for a regular check-up. As part of the intervention, employees of the Municipal Health Services visited the diabetes care providers and asked them to discuss symptoms and risks of infections during these check-ups. The Web site (http://www.juliuscenter.nl/diabetes/infecties [in Dutch]) was online from October 2005 to March 2006. The educational newsletter was sent 3 months after the start of the intervention.
Measurements: questionnaires and diaries
Questionnaires (health behavioral determinants).
Evaluation questionnaires were developed on the basis of results of focus groups conducted during the development of the intervention (online appendix 1) and with guidance from the field of vaccination behavior (16,17). Baseline measurements (T0) were assessed in September 2005 and effects (T5) in March 2006 by means of written questionnaires. The requested time for responding was 1 week, and both mailed (up to two) and telephone reminders were used. The first part of the questionnaire consisted of patient characteristics such as age, sex, educational level, type of diabetes treatment, and comorbidity. The remaining components of the questionnaire assessed determinants of health-seeking behavior (online appendix 3). We pretested the questionnaire in a few patients and assessed readability and comprehension. Answering categories were either dichotomous or according to 5-point Likert scales.
Diaries (self-reported health behavior).
Participants were asked to keep a diary for 20 weeks (from October 2005 to March 2006). The diaries were sent to the homes of the participants after the meeting with instructions on how to complete them. We did not send the diaries before the intervention because we did not want to raise awareness among the control subjects. The requested time to respond was 1 week after the conclusion of the 20-week study period. Two written reminders were used. In the diary, symptoms of LRTI and UTI and visits to GPs were reported. The severity of the symptoms was assessed on a 4-point scale from "no discomfort" to "great discomfort."
Outcome measurements.
The primary outcome measure was an indicator of health-seeking behavior for UTIs and LRTIs, defined as the proportion of participants with a positive score on statements pertaining to the nine above-mentioned determinants of health-seeking behavior. A positive score per person was assigned if results for at least seven of the nine determinants of health-seeking behavior were positive. Per determinant, one or more statements were posed. At least half of the statements per determinant had to be positive. The secondary outcome measures were changes in the nine separate behavioral determinants of health-seeking behavior. With regard to our second hypothesis, outcome measures were the percentages of cases in which there was self-reported contact with the primary care practice. For LRTI, these cases were coughing and shortness of breath and coughing and fever for longer than 2 days. For UTI, these cases were complaints of the urinary tract for longer than 2 days or complaints of the urinary tract and fever for longer than 1 day (females) and just complaints of the urinary tract (males). . These criteria were derived from the advice given during the educational meetings. They were measured by means of the diaries.
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS software for Windows (version 12.0; SPSS, Chicago, IL). Statements that were measured on 5-point Likert scales were dichotomized in the two most positive answers versus the other three responses. Proportions and means were used to describe baseline characteristics.
Changes in determinants of behavior between T0 and T5 were measured with ANCOVA. This method was used because it adjusts each patient's follow-up score for his or her baseline score and has the advantage of being unaffected by baseline differences (18). ANCOVA was applied using the generalized equation estimation model to adjust for differences in baseline and for clustering at the level of practice (19). This step was performed using SAS Proc Genmod (version 8.02; SAS, Cary, NC). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs are presented for questionnaires only for those determinants with P < 0.05. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. In addition, we planned an on-treatment analysis comparing the scores in patients who actually visited the meetings with those of patients who did not and control patients. Subgroup analysis was done for patients with a lower educational level and for patients at high risk for a complicated course of infections. 
2 analyses were used to analyze the diaries. Subgroup analysis was done for instances in which the patient reported severe complaints only (great discomfort).
|
RESULTS— |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONRESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--RESULTS--CONCLUSIONS--References |
|---|
Of the 1,124 patients who were randomly assigned and responded to the baseline questionnaire, 572 were assigned to the intervention group and 552 to the control group (Fig. 1). Baseline characteristics are given in Table 1. The mean ± SD age was 64 ± 9 years, 53% of the participants were male, comorbidity was present in 44% of the patients, and insulin was used by 13% of the patients. Mean duration of diabetes was 6 ± 7 years. Complete outcome data were available for 468 and 472 patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Compared with control subjects, participants in the intervention group who were lost to follow-up were more often men than women (55 vs. 42%). Of the patients who were lost to follow-up, the duration of diabetes, the use of insulin, age, and the intention to consult the GP when symptoms of infections were present did not differ between groups.
|
|
Compliance with the intervention
The meeting was attended by 68% of the intervention group patients for whom complete data were available (compared with 46% of all patients for whom data were incomplete). In total, 25% of the patients indicated that their risk of infection had been discussed with their diabetes care provider, 44% had read the newsletter, and 9% of the patients who had Internet access had visited the Web site.
Health behavioral determinants
ITT analysis.
Hypothesis 1. Compared with control subjects, knowledge of the risks of UTI and LRTI in intervention group subjects increased (31 vs. 4% for UTI and 37 vs. 0% for LRTI). The same was true for knowledge of the symptoms of UTI and LRTI (11 vs. 0% and 31 vs. 4%, respectively). Moreover, bronchitis and cystitis were perceived by more patients as dangerous (21 vs. 5% and 22 vs. 4%, respectively). Confidence to contact the GP if the practice was difficult to reach increased among participants in the intervention group, whereas among the control group this percentage remained at the baseline level (6 vs. 1% in control subjects). Furthermore, the intention of intervention group patients to consult the GP increased when they had symptoms of a UTI (3 vs. –3% in control subjects) and LRTI (4 vs. –5%) (Table 2). Although the baseline figures were already very positive, the intention to seek medical attention because of symptoms that could indicate an infection increased. Compared with the control subjects, the intervention group patients did not change their belief about a decreased risk of serious consequences if they contacted the GP (0 vs. –4%).
|
Hypothesis 2. At baseline, 28% of the intervention group participants had a positive score on seven of the nine determinants compared with 27% of the control subjects. After the educational program, these percentages were 53 and 32%, respectively, indicating an improvement of 25% in the intervention group compared with 5% in the control subjects (P < 0.001). Analyses done separately for patients with lower educational levels (from 24 to 50% in intervention patients and from 25 to 27% in control subjects) as well as for patients at high risk for a complicated course of infections (from 40 to 57% and from 31 to 43%, respectively) showed no substantial differences with the overall results.
A sensitivity analysis showed that the proportion of participants with a positive score on at least six of nine determinants increased from 50 to 72% (46 to 53% in control subjects; P < 0.001). For at least eight of nine determinants, the proportion of participants increased from 11 to 36% (11 to 13% in control subjects; P < 0.001).
On-treatment analysis.
Hypothesis 1. Subgroup analyses for participants of the intervention group who attended the meeting showed a 45% difference in knowledge about risks of LRTI (0% in control subjects). Knowledge about risks of UTI increased in 33% (5% in control subjects); knowledge of symptoms of UTI and LRTI increased in 15% (0% of control subjects) and 35% (4% of control subjects), respectively; and confidence to contact the GP if the practice is difficult to reach increased in 9% (1% in control subjects).
Hypothesis 2. After the educational program, 58% of the intervention group participants scored positively on seven of the nine determinants (ITT 53%). Of the intervention group participants who did not attend the meeting, 42% had a positive score.
Self-reported health behavior.
Hypothesis 2. In total, 69% of the patients returned the diary, equally divided over the two groups. Of the patients in the intervention group, 43% (23 of 54 patients with symptoms) sought care for symptoms of UTIs, compared with 32% (21 of 65) of the control subjects. For LRTIs, the figures were 49% (51 of 105) and 41% (43 of 106), respectively. There was a trend toward visiting the GP more often. The differences were most obvious for men with complaints of the urinary tract (57 vs. 35%; OR 2.2 [95% CI 0.8–6.4]). Subgroup analyses for serious complaints (great discomfort) revealed an even larger difference for LRTIs (49 vs. 32%; 2.2 [0.8–6.6]); however, the numbers were small.
|
CONCLUSIONS— |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONRESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--RESULTS--CONCLUSIONS--References |
|---|
This is, to our knowledge, the first study that has assessed the short-term effects of an educational program on health-seeking behavior for infections in type 2 diabetic patients. Patient characteristics were comparable with those of typical Dutch type 2 diabetic patients (20,21). The program positively influenced determinants of health-seeking behavior. The proportion of participants with a positive score on at least seven of nine determinants of health-seeking behavior almost doubled from 28 to 53% (compared with an increase from 27 to 32% in control subjects).
The program especially increased the knowledge for the type 2 diabetic patients about the symptoms and risk factors of infections. It enhanced a realistic risk perception. In addition, self-efficacy and the intention to seek medical attention were positively influenced. On some points the effects of the education were limited; e.g., patients did not believe they had a decreased risk of serious consequences when seeking medical attention because of symptoms indicating an infection. An explanation might be the so-called "ceiling effects," as the baseline data were already positive. The differences found between the on-treatment and ITT analysis supported the fact that the meetings were an essential part of the educational program in light of the fact that the proportion of patients who had read the newsletter (44%) or visited the Web site (9%) was relatively low. Unfortunately, we cannot compare these findings with those of other studies because the designs of most studies do not allow disentangling of the effects of the different components (22).
It is known that many men with complaints of the urinary tract do not visit their GP (23). We found a trend of intervention group patients visiting the GP more often, especially men with complaints of UTIs. However, the differences between the intervention and the control groups were not statistically significant. This result may be due to low numbers, because subgroup analysis for serious complaints of LRTIs revealed larger differences and may indicate that patients with type 2 diabetes perceive the necessity of seeking medical attention even more when complaints of LRTIs are serious.
The results of our study should be considered cautiously. Effects regarding intention to seek medical care were positive but moderate. However, the fact that all determinants changed positively may indicate that health-seeking behavior for infections by this high-risk group of patients will improve. We believe that this program is a first step in changing the perception of type 2 diabetic patients. Small changes may have a considerable effect on a larger scale.
Our study has several limitations. The first is the short duration of the follow-up. Positive effects from educational programs are mostly shown for interventions of a shorter duration. Indeed, one study showed that 1 year after the last session of an educational program, most of the clinical effects are lost (24). Also, our study showed a suboptimal use of the tools developed (newsletter and Web site). Barriers as to why patients did not fully use the tools provided with the program were not identified systematically. Further research should be conducted to assess ways of improving the use of the tools provided and facilitate their implementation in daily practice. A third limitation is the insufficient number of observations of serious complications to permit subgroup analysis. However, we believe that such a relation can be assumed for infections in diabetes care. Delays in care seeking lead to delays in treatment and may in turn lead to serious complications. A fourth limitation is that all measures were self-reported. We could have used medical records to validate health-seeking behavior. Whether the reported behavior is more likely to be overreported because of social desirability or underreported because of recall bias remains unclear. A fifth limitation is the kind of "dummy" intervention that might address concerns about the Hawthorne effect. Indeed, among all control subjects we raised awareness by asking about their behavior. For that reason differences between groups could have been diminished. Therefore, the Hawthorne effect, if any, would have biased our results to accepting the null hypothesis (finding no difference between groups).
This study clearly demonstrated a benefit in health-seeking behavior for type 2 diabetic patients. Results from this study suggest that patients and practitioners should discuss infections during regular check-ups. Materials (such as leaflets) could be used to increase the implementation of the program in daily practice. Diabetes care providers could instruct people with type 2 diabetes to contact the medical practice when symptoms occur. Just this little effort on the part of diabetes care providers could result in large effects on the burden of common infections in people with type 2 diabetes.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This work was supported by the Public Health Fund (U03/175-P230) and the Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation, the Netherlands (2003.00.031).
We thank the general practitioners and diabetic patients who participated in this study and acknowledge M. Smit for her administrative assistance and J. Box for language review.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Published ahead of print at http://care.diabetesjournals.org on 4 December 2007. DOI: 10.2337/dc07-0744. Clinical trial reg. no. ISRCTN10791836, www.ISRCTN.org.
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Received for publication April 17, 2007. Accepted for publication November 23, 2007.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONRESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--RESULTS--CONCLUSIONS--References |
|---|
- Mokdad AH, Ford ES, Bowman EA, Nelson DE, Engelgau MM, Vinicor F, Marks JS: Diabetes trends in the US: 1990–1998. Diabetes Care 23:1278–1283, 2000
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Zimmet P, Alberti KG, Shaw J: Global and societal implications of the diabetes epidemic. Nature 414:782–787, 2001[Medline]
- Gupta K, Hooton TM, Roberts PL, Stamm WE: Patient-initiated treatment of uncomplicated recurrent urinary tract infections in young women. Ann Intern Med 135:9–16, 2001
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Valdez R, Narayan KM, Geiss LS, Engelgau MM: Impact of diabetes mellitus on mortality associated with pneumonia and influenza among non-Hispanic black and white US adults. Am J Public Health 89:1715–1721, 1999
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Falguera M, Pifare R, Martin A, Sheikh A, Moreno A: Etiology and outcome of community-acquired pneumonia in patients with diabetes mellitus. Chest 128:3233–3239, 2005[Medline]
- Boyko EJ, Fihn SD, Scholes D, Chen CL, Normand EH, Yarbro P: Diabetes and the risk of urinary tract infection among postmenopausal women. Diabetes Care 25:1778–1783, 2002
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Muller LM, Gorter KJ, Hak E, Goudzwaard WL, Schellevis FG, Hoepelman AI, Rutten GE: Increased risk of common infections in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Clin Infect Dis 41:281–288, 2005[Medline]
- Hu KK, Boyko EJ, Scholes D, Normand E, Chen CL, Grafton J, Fihn SD: Risk factors for urinary tract infections in postmenopausal women. Arch Intern Med 164:989–993, 2004
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Hoepelman AIM, Meiland R, Geerlings SE: Pathogenesis and management of bacterial urinary tract infections in adult patients with diabetes mellitus. Int J Antimicrob Agents 22:35–43, 2003[Medline]
- Patterson JE, Andriole VT: Bacterial urinary tract infections in diabetes. Infect Dis Clin North Am 11:735–747, 1997[Medline]
- Shah BR, Hux JE: Quantifying the risk of infectious diseases for people with diabetes. Diabetes Care 26:510–513, 2003
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Bertoni AG, Saydah S, Brancati FL: Diabetes and the risk of infection-related mortality in the U.S. Diabetes Care 24:1044–1049, 2001
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - McGinn A, Rosamond W, Goff D Jr, Taylor H, Miles J, Chambless L: Trends in prehospital delay time and use of emergency medical services for acute myocardial infarction: experience in 4 US communities from 1987–2000. Am Heart J 150:392–400, 2005[Medline]
- Mayer D, Rosenfeld A: Symptom interpretation in women with diabetes and myocardial infarction. Diabetes Educ 32:918–924, 2006
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Rosenstock IM, Strecher JV, Becker MH: Social learning theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Educ Q 15:175–183, 1988[Medline]
- Opstelten W, Hak E, Verheij TJ, van Essen GA: Introducing a pneumococcal vaccine to an existing influenza immunization program: vaccination rates and predictors of noncompliance. Am J Med 111:474–479, 2001[Medline]
- Hak E, Schonbeck Y, De Melker H, Van Essen GA, Sanders EA: Negative attitude of highly educated parents and health care workers towards future vaccinations in the Dutch childhood vaccination program. Vaccine 23:3103–3107, 2005[Medline]
- Vickers AJ, Altman DG: Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ 323:1123–1124, 2001
[Free Full Text] - Hanley JA, Negassa A, Edwardes MD, Forrester JE: Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol 157:364–375, 2003
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - De Grauw WJ, van Gerwen WH, van de Lisdonk EH, van den Hoogen HJ, van den Bosch WJ, van Weel C: Outcomes of audit-enhanced monitoring of patients with type 2 diabetes. J Fam Pract 51:459–464, 2002[Medline]
- Goudswaard AN, Stolk RP, Zuithoff P, Rutten GE: Patient characteristics do not predict poor glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes patients treated in primary care. Eur J Epidemiol 19:541–545, 2004[Medline]
- Renders CM, Valk GD, Griffin S, Wagner EH, Eijk Van JT, Assendelft WJ: Interventions to improve the management of diabetes mellitus in primary care, outpatient and community settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD001481, 2001[Medline]
- Wolters R, Wensing M, Van Weel C, Van Der Wilt GJ, Grol RP: Lower urinary tract symptoms: social influence is more important than symptoms in seeking medical care. BJU Int 90:655–661, 2002[Medline]
- Norris SL, Lau J, Smith SJ, Schmid CH, Engelgau MM: Self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of the effect on glycemic control. Diabetes Care 25:1159–1171, 2002
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
CiteULike 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Diabetes | Diabetes Care | Clinical Diabetes | Diabetes Spectrum |