-
Observational Study
Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes data in structured diabetes education intervention: 2-year follow-up data of patient empowerment programme.
- Carlos K H Wong, Cindy L K Lam, Eric Y F Wan, Anca K C Chan, C H Pak, Frank W K Chan, and William C W Wong.
- Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
- Endocrine. 2016 Nov 1; 54 (2): 422-432.
AbstractTo examine the effects of a structured group-based education programme, patient empowerment programme (PEP), compared with usual care on 2-year changes in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). A prospective observational study of 715 patients (PEP/non-PEP: 390/325) was conducted to complete the baseline PRO survey and followed up for 2 years. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was measured using the short-form 12 at baseline and annually at two follow-up assessments, which yielded physical and mental component summary and SF-6D preference-based scores. Perceived control over diabetes and general health status were measured using the patient enablement instrument (PEI) and global rating scale (GRS) at follow-ups. When compared with non-PEP, PEP participants significantly reported improvement in health condition (GRS score > 0; 24.55 % vs 10.16 %; odds ratio = 2.502; P = 0.018) in 2 years and enabled the self-perceived control over diabetes (PEI score > 0; 72.20 % vs 38.40 %; odds ratio = 3.25; P < 0.001) in 1-year follow-up but no sustained effects in year 2 (52.65 % vs 39.04 %; odds ratio = 1.366; P = 0.265). There were no significant differences between PEP and non-PEP groups in the changes in quality of life scores (all P > 0.05) at 1 year. Although HRQOL scores deteriorated over 2-year period in both groups, PEP participants reported similar changes in HRQOL scores to that of non-PEP. PEP for DM patients preserved self-perceived disease control and health condition, whereas PEP participants perceived their HRQOL similar to that of non-PEP participants. Findings of PRO should be considered alongside clinical outcomes when evaluating the overall benefits of PEP.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.