Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30939143›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

Impact of a novel pharmacist-delivered behavioral intervention for patients with poorly-controlled diabetes: The ENhancing outcomes through Goal Assessment and Generating Engagement in Diabetes Mellitus (ENGAGE-DM) pragmatic randomized trial.

Julie C Lauffenburger, Roya Ghazinouri, Saira Jan, Sagar Makanji, Christina A Ferro, Jennifer Lewey, Eric Wittbrodt, Jessica Lee, Nancy Haff, Constance P Fontanet and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02910089 (ENhancing Outcomes Through Goal Assessment and Generating Engagement in Diabetes Mellitus), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02910089 phase4completednot on this map

ENhancing Outcomes Through Goal Assessment and Generating Engagement in Diabetes Mellitus (ENGAGE-DM): A 12-month Study of the Impact of Combined Shared-decision Making and Brief Negotiated Interviewing on Disease Control and Medication Adherence in Patients With Diabetes

TypeinterventionalSponsorAstraZenecaRan2016 to 2017Enrolled1,400ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus Type 2ArmsShared Decision Making
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Digital Health Interventions by Clinical Pharmacists: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  12. Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Julie C LauffenburgerCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4940-4140
Roya GhazinouriCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Saira JanHorizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
Sagar MakanjiMagellan Rx Management, Newport, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Christina A FerroMagellan Rx Management, Newport, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Jennifer LeweyDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Eric WittbrodtAstraZeneca, US-Medical Affairs, Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4060-7638
Jessica LeeCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Nancy HaffCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Constance P FontanetCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Niteesh K ChoudhryCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USMagellan Health · USAstraZeneca (United States) · USHospital of the University of Pennsylvania · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany factors contribute to suboptimal diabetes control including insufficiently-intensive treatment and non-adherence to medication and lifestyle. Determining which of these is most relevant for individual patients is challenging. Patient engagement techniques may help identify contributors to suboptimal adherence and address barriers (using motivational interviewing) and help facilitate choices among treatment augmentation options (using shared decision-making). These methods have not been used in combination to improve diabetes outcomes.

objectiveTo evaluate the impact of a telephone-based patient-centered intervention on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) control for individuals with poorly-controlled diabetes.

designTwo-arm pragmatic randomized control trial within an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. SUBJECTS: 1,400 participants 18-64 years old with poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes.

interventionThe intervention was delivered over the telephone by a clinical pharmacist and consisted of a 2-step process that integrated brief negotiated interviewing and shared decision-making to identify patient goals and options for enhancing diabetes management. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes were medication adherence measures. Outcomes were evaluated using intention-to-treat principles; multiple imputation was used for missing values in the 12-month follow-up. We used information from pharmacist notes to elicit factors to potentially explain the intervention's effectiveness. KEY

resultsParticipants had a mean age of 54.7 years (SD:8.3) and baseline HbA1c of 9.4 (SD:1.6). Change in HbA1c from baseline was -0.79 (SD:2.01) in the control arm and -0.75 (SD:1.76) in the intervention arm (difference:+0.04, 95%CI: -0.22, 0.30). There were no significant differences in adherence. In as-treated analyses, the intervention significantly improved diabetes control (-0.48, 95%CI: -0.91, -0.05). Qualitative findings provided several potential explanations for the findings, including insufficiently addressing patient barriers.

conclusionsA novel telephone-based patient-centered intervention did not improve HbA1c among individuals with poorly-controlled diabetes, though as-treated analyses suggest that the intervention was effective for those who received it.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02910089.

Indexed as

Motivational InterviewingAdolescentAdultBehavior ControlDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansHypoglycemic AgentsMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedPharmacistsTelephoneTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultGlycated HemoglobinHypoglycemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID30939143
PMCPMC6445420
OpenAlexW2926719416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.