Resilient, Empowered, Active Living with Diabetes (REAL)
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Elizabeth Pyatak, University of Southern California
Version: View help for Version V1
| Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assessments | 08/02/2018 03:58:PM | ||
| Codebook | 08/02/2018 04:03:PM | ||
| Consents | 08/02/2018 04:01:PM | ||
| Data | 08/02/2018 04:04:PM | ||
| Misc | 08/02/2018 04:05:PM |
Project Citation:
Pyatak, Elizabeth. Resilient, Empowered, Active Living with Diabetes (REAL). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2018-08-02. https://doi.org/10.3886/E105184V1
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
This three-year study pilot-tested an innovative
intervention, Resilient, Empowered, Active Living with Diabetes (REAL),
targeting underserved minority young adults with poorly-controlled diabetes.
The individually tailored, community-based intervention merged findings of an
in-depth needs assessment, principles of an evidence-based occupational
therapy intervention (Lifestyle Redesign®) and evidence-based diabetes
self-management strategies. A proof-of-concept study demonstrated that REAL is
feasible to implement, acceptable to young adults with type 1 diabetes and type
2 diabetes, and has potential to produce positive changes in diabetes self-care
and glycemic control.
Specific Aims and Hypotheses:
Aim 1. Determine the intervention's efficacy for the primary outcomes: glycemic control and diabetes self-care. Hypothesis: At 6 months (immediately following the intervention), intervention group participants will demonstrate improvements in A1C and diabetes self-care as compared to control group participants.
Aim 2. Conduct exploratory analyses of the intervention's impact on secondary outcomes and potential mediating mechanisms (to inform power estimates for a large-scale RCT). Hypothesis 1: At 6 months, intervention group participants will demonstrate improvements in secondary outcomes: diabetes-related stress and quality of life, depression, and life satisfaction as compared to control group participants. Hypothesis 2: At 6 months, intervention group participants will demonstrate improvements in potential mediators of the intervention: habit strength, problem solving, activity participation, self-efficacy and diabetes knowledge as compared to baseline.
Aim 3. Conduct a process evaluation utilizing mixed methods to evaluate and refine intervention delivery (e.g. treatment fidelity, patient satisfaction) and study procedures (e.g. recruitment, retention, testing protocol).
Research Design and Methods: Eighty-one young adults (age=22.6 ± 3.5 yrs; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)=10.8%/95 mmol/mol ± 1.9%/20.8 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned to the REAL Diabetes intervention group (IG) or an attention control group (CG) over 6 months. IG participants received biweekly sessions guided by a manual composed of 7 content modules; CG participants received standardized educational materials and biweekly phone calls. Blinded assessors collected data at baseline and 6 months. The primary outcome was HbA1c; secondary outcomes included diabetes self-care, diabetes-related quality of life, diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction. Change scores were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.
Results: Intention-to-treat analyses showed that IG participants showed significant improvement in HbA1c (-0.57%/6.2 mmol/mol vs. +0.36%/3.9 mmol/mol, p=0.01), diabetes-related quality of life (+0.7 vs. +0.15, p=0.04), and habit strength for checking blood glucose (+3.9 vs. +1.7, p=0.05) as compared to CG participants. There was no statistically significant effect modification by gender, ethnicity, diabetes type, recruitment site, or SES. No study-related serious adverse events were reported.
Conclusions: The REAL Diabetes intervention improves blood glucose control and diabetes-related quality of life among a typically hard-to-reach population. This study provides the most methodologically rigorous evidence to date that occupational therapy improves both clinical and psychosocial outcomes among individuals with diabetes.
This work was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIH/NIDDK #1K01 DK099202-01A1).
Specific Aims and Hypotheses:
Aim 1. Determine the intervention's efficacy for the primary outcomes: glycemic control and diabetes self-care. Hypothesis: At 6 months (immediately following the intervention), intervention group participants will demonstrate improvements in A1C and diabetes self-care as compared to control group participants.
Aim 2. Conduct exploratory analyses of the intervention's impact on secondary outcomes and potential mediating mechanisms (to inform power estimates for a large-scale RCT). Hypothesis 1: At 6 months, intervention group participants will demonstrate improvements in secondary outcomes: diabetes-related stress and quality of life, depression, and life satisfaction as compared to control group participants. Hypothesis 2: At 6 months, intervention group participants will demonstrate improvements in potential mediators of the intervention: habit strength, problem solving, activity participation, self-efficacy and diabetes knowledge as compared to baseline.
Aim 3. Conduct a process evaluation utilizing mixed methods to evaluate and refine intervention delivery (e.g. treatment fidelity, patient satisfaction) and study procedures (e.g. recruitment, retention, testing protocol).
Research Design and Methods: Eighty-one young adults (age=22.6 ± 3.5 yrs; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)=10.8%/95 mmol/mol ± 1.9%/20.8 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned to the REAL Diabetes intervention group (IG) or an attention control group (CG) over 6 months. IG participants received biweekly sessions guided by a manual composed of 7 content modules; CG participants received standardized educational materials and biweekly phone calls. Blinded assessors collected data at baseline and 6 months. The primary outcome was HbA1c; secondary outcomes included diabetes self-care, diabetes-related quality of life, diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction. Change scores were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.
Results: Intention-to-treat analyses showed that IG participants showed significant improvement in HbA1c (-0.57%/6.2 mmol/mol vs. +0.36%/3.9 mmol/mol, p=0.01), diabetes-related quality of life (+0.7 vs. +0.15, p=0.04), and habit strength for checking blood glucose (+3.9 vs. +1.7, p=0.05) as compared to CG participants. There was no statistically significant effect modification by gender, ethnicity, diabetes type, recruitment site, or SES. No study-related serious adverse events were reported.
Conclusions: The REAL Diabetes intervention improves blood glucose control and diabetes-related quality of life among a typically hard-to-reach population. This study provides the most methodologically rigorous evidence to date that occupational therapy improves both clinical and psychosocial outcomes among individuals with diabetes.
This work was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIH/NIDDK #1K01 DK099202-01A1).
Funding Sources:
View help for Funding Sources
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (1K01 DK099202-01A1)
Scope of Project
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
Los Angeles, CA
Collection Date(s):
View help for Collection Date(s)
10/2014 – 8/2016
Universe:
View help for Universe
Eligible participants were adults age 18–30 years old, with a diagnosis of either T1D or T2D for at least 12 months, and a hemoglobin A1C of ≥ 8.0% at the time of study enrollment. Participants were fluent in English or Spanish, were reachable by phone or text message, lived within Los Angeles County with no plans to relocate, and expressed willingness to participate in all study-related activities. While study funds were allocated to provide cell phones with text messaging capability to participants who did not have cell phones or who could not afford the additional cost of calling or text messaging the study team using their personal cell phone, all participants declined this offer. All participants were low in socioeconomic status; initially this was operationalized to mean that the participant had a household income of 138% of Federal Poverty Level or lower. This definition was later expanded to include the following: the participant qualified for income-restricted government entitlement programs (e.g., MediCal/Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program); the participant had a household income of 250% of Federal Poverty Level or lower; or neither of the participant's parents had attained a four-year college degree.Participants were excluded if they had cognitive disabilities or severe impairments that limited life expectancy; were pregnant or planned a pregnancy within the next 6 months; had participated in a diabetes management intervention beyond diabetes education offered in usual clinic visits totaling ≥ 6 h within the past year; or if they had participated in qualitative research used to inform the development of the REAL Diabetes intervention.
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
administrative records data;
clinical data;
experimental data;
medical records;
survey data
Methodology
Response Rate:
View help for Response Rate
241 individuals were assessed for eligibility and 81 were randomized to either the intervention (41) or the control (40) group. 71 participants completed follow-up testing. Of the 10 participants who did not complete follow-up testing, nine participants (11.1%) were lost to follow-up, and one participant (1.2%) withdrew from the study, citing a lack of time to complete the study requirements.
Collection Mode(s):
View help for Collection Mode(s)
face-to-face interview;
mixed mode;
on-site questionnaire;
paper and pencil interview (PAPI);
record abstracts;
self-enumerated questionnaire
Scales:
View help for Scales
Please see the Data Dictionary
Unit(s) of Observation:
View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Individual
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.