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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Nov 1;5(11):e2237960.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.37960.

Effectiveness of a Health Coaching Intervention for Patient-Family Dyads to Improve Outcomes Among Adults With Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effectiveness of a Health Coaching Intervention for Patient-Family Dyads to Improve Outcomes Among Adults With Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Ann-Marie Rosland et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: More than 75% of US adults with diabetes do not meet treatment goals. More effective support from family and friends ("supporters") may improve diabetes management and outcomes.

Objective: To determine if the Caring Others Increasing Engagement in Patient Aligned Care Teams (CO-IMPACT) intervention improves patient activation, diabetes management, and outcomes compared with standard care.

Design, setting, and participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted from November 2016 to August 2019 among participants recruited from 2 Veterans Health Administration primary care sites. All patient participants were adults aged 30 to 70 years with diabetes who had hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels greater than 8% of total hemoglobin (to convert to proportion of total hemoglobin, multiply by 0.01) or systolic blood pressure (SBP) higher than 150 mm Hg; each participating patient had an adult supporter. Of 1119 recruited, 239 patient-supporter dyads were enrolled between November 2016 and May 2018, randomized 1:1 to receive the CO-IMPACT intervention or standard care, and followed up for 12 to 15 months. Investigators and analysts were blinded to group assignment.

Interventions: Patient-supporter dyads received a health coaching session focused on dyadic information sharing and positive support techniques, then 12 months of biweekly automated monitoring telephone calls to prompt dyadic actions to meet diabetes goals, coaching calls to help dyads prepare for primary care visits, and after-visit summaries. Standard-care dyads received general diabetes education materials only.

Main outcomes and measures: Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted according to baseline dyad assignment. Primary prespecified outcomes were 12-month changes in Patient Activation Measure-13 (PAM-13) and UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) 5-year diabetes-specific cardiac event risk scores. Secondary outcomes included 12-month changes in HbA1c levels, SBP, diabetes self-management behaviors, diabetes distress, diabetes management self-efficacy, and satisfaction with health system support for the involvement of family supporters. Changes in outcome measures between baseline and 12 months were analyzed using linear regression models.

Results: A total of 239 dyads enrolled; among patient participants, the mean (SD) age was 60 (8.9) years, and 231 (96.7%) were male. The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c level was 8.5% (1.6%) and SBP was 140.2 mm Hg (18.4 mm Hg). A total of 168 patients (70.3%) lived with their enrolled supporter; 229 patients (95.8%) had complete 12-month outcome data. In intention-to-treat analyses vs standard care, CO-IMPACT patients had greater 12-month improvements in PAM-13 scores (intervention effect, 2.60 points; 95% CI, 0.02-5.18 points; P = .048) but nonsignificant differences in UKPDS 5-year cardiac risk (intervention effect, 1.01 points; 95% CI, -0.74 to 2.77 points; P = .26). Patients in the CO-IMPACT arm also had greater 12-month improvements in healthy eating (intervention effect, 0.71 d/wk; 95% CI, 0.20-1.22 d/wk; P = .007), diabetes self-efficacy (intervention effect, 0.40 points; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71 points; P = .01), and satisfaction with health system support for the family supporter participants' involvement (intervention effect, 0.28 points; 95% CI, 0.07-0.49 points; P = .009); however, the 2 arms had similar improvements in HbA1c levels and in other measures.

Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the CO-IMPACT intervention successfully engaged patient-supporter dyads and led to improved patient activation and self-efficacy. Physiological outcomes improved similarly in both arms. More intensive direct coaching of supporters, or targeting patients with less preexisting support or fewer diabetes management resources, may have greater impact.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02328326.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lee reported receiving personal fees from Observia Inc outside the submitted work. Dr Kerr reported receiving grants from Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development (VA HSR&D) during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Study Participant Flow Diagram
ADL indicates activities of daily living; CO-IMPACT, Caring Others Increasing Engagement in Patient Aligned Care Teams; PCP, primary care physician; and UKPDS, UK Prospective Diabetes Study. aIf a supporter died or withdrew, the patient was allowed to continue in the patient-focused parts of their originally assigned intervention. bThe supporter was automatically withdrawn if the patient died or withdrew from the study.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Participation in CO-IMPACT Intervention Components
IVR indicates interactive voice response. aMean (SD) calls per patient over 12 months was 2.4 (1.9). bMean (SD) calls per dyad over 12 months was 18.6 (6.9). cMean (SD) summaries per patient over 12 months was 4.2 (2.6).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Fang M, Wang D, Coresh J, Selvin E. Trends in diabetes treatment and control in US adults, 1999-2018. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(23):2219-2228. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa2032271 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rosland AM, Heisler M, Choi HJ, Silveira MJ, Piette JD. Family influences on self-management among functionally independent adults with diabetes or heart failure: do family members hinder as much as they help? Chronic Illn. 2010;6(1):22-33. doi:10.1177/1742395309354608 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Silliman RA, Bhatti S, Khan A, Dukes KA, Sullivan LM. The care of older persons with diabetes mellitus: families and primary care physicians. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44(11):1314-1321. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb01401.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Woods SB, Bridges K, Carpenter EN. The critical need to recognize that families matter for adult health: a systematic review of the literature. Fam Process. 2020;59(4):1608-1626. doi:10.1111/famp.12505 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Strom JL, Egede LE. The impact of social support on outcomes in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Curr Diab Rep. 2012;12(6):769-781. doi:10.1007/s11892-012-0317-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

Associated data