Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2021 Jun;36(6):1648-1655.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06570-y. Epub 2021 Feb 2.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments (SMAs) as Implemented in Five Veterans Affairs Health Systems: a Multi-site Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Trial

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments (SMAs) as Implemented in Five Veterans Affairs Health Systems: a Multi-site Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Trial

Michele Heisler et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Jun.

Abstract

Objective: To examine whether diabetes shared medical appointments (SMAs) implemented as part of usual clinical practice in diverse health systems are more effective than usual care in improving and sustaining A1c improvements.

Research design and methods: A multi-site cluster randomized pragmatic trial examining implementation in clinical practice of diabetes SMAs in five Veterans Affairs (VA) health systems was conducted from 2016 to 2020 among 1537 adults with type 2 diabetes and elevated A1cs. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to either: (1) invitation to participate in a series of SMAs totaling 8-9 h; or (2) continuation of usual care. Relative change in A1c (primary outcome) and in systolic blood pressure, insulin starts, statin starts, and anti-hypertensive medication classes (secondary outcomes) were measured as part of usual clinical care at baseline, at 6 months and at 12 months (~7 months after conclusion of the final SMA in four of five sites). We examined outcomes in three samples of SMA participants: all those scheduled for a SMA, those attending at least one SMA, and those attending at least half of SMAs.

Results: Baseline mean A1c was 9.0%. Participants scheduled for an SMA achieved A1c reductions 0.35% points greater than the control group between baseline and 6-months follow up (p = .001). Those who attended at least one SMA achieved reductions 0.42 % points greater (p < .001), and those who attended at least half of scheduled SMAs achieved reductions 0.53 % points greater (p < .001) than the control group. At 12-month follow-up, the three SMA analysis samples achieved reductions from baseline ranging from 0.16 % points (p = 0.12) to 0.29 % points (p = .06) greater than the control group.

Conclusions: Diabetes SMAs as implemented in real-life diverse clinical practices improve glycemic control more than usual care immediately after the SMAs, but relative gains are not maintained. Our findings suggest the need for further study of whether a longer term SMA model or other follow-up strategies would sustain relative clinical improvements associated with this intervention.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02132676.

Keywords: shared medical appointment, peer support, disease management, implementation, diabetes mellitus, pragmatic clinical trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The CONSORT diagram.aThis includes “soft refusers” (e.g., those who did not show up to a scheduled SMA and were unable to be rescheduled). bThis includes those whose A1c’s “expired” (≥ 6 months old) before they could be recruited for an SMA. cOf these, 304 were offered the P2P program and, of those, 59 actively participated in the P2P program. dOf these, 451 completed a baseline survey, 376 completed a 6-month survey, and 348 completed a 12-month survey. eCACE (Complier Average Causal Effect) analysis consists of those meeting our pre-specified threshold for effective engagement.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ligthart S, wan Herpt TTW, Leening MJG, et al. Lifetime risk of developing impaired glucose metabolism and eventual progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4(1):44-51. - PubMed
    1. Davies MJ, D’Alessio DA, Fradkin J, et al. Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) Diabetes Care. 2018;41(12):2669–2701. doi: 10.2337/dci18-0033. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pillay J, Armstrong MJ, Butalia S, et al. Behavioral Programs for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:848–860. doi: 10.7326/M15-1400. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bodenheimer T, Handley MA. Goal-setting for behavior change in primary care: an exploration and status report. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(2):174–180. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.06.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kirsh S, Watts S, Schaub K, et al. Training Manual, VA Shared Medical Appointments for Patients with Diabetes: Maximizing Patient & Provider Expertise to Strengthen Care Management. 2008. http://www.queri.research.va.gov/tools/diabetes/shared-med-appt.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2016.

Publication types

Associated data