Michele Heisler

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe adaptations and participant characteristics and engagement in family-focused diabetes self-management education (DSME) before and during a large-scale disruption in health care access and research participation, which prompted a pivot to virtual DSME. Methods: The study was conducted at a federally qualified health center (FQHC) serving a predominantly low-socioeconomic status Hispanic community. Two hundred twenty-two adults with type 2 diabetes (85% Hispanic) receiving care from the FQHC enrolled with a support person (SP); dyads were randomized to community health worker (CHW)-led dyad-focused Family Support for Diabetes Health Action (FAM-ACT) or patient-focused DSME. Survey, health record, and session data were compared between those enrolled before (n = 77) versus during the disruption (n = 145). Results: In hybrid (virtual+in person) DSME, CHWs prioritized group discussion and shorter sessions emphasizing participants’ personal health goals and social-emotional concerns. Enrollment was lower after versus before switching to hybrid (23% vs 30% recruited). Those with less complex diabetes and preferring Spanish enrolled at higher rates during hybrid offerings. Overall, patient DSME attendance slightly decreased during versus before hybrid implementation (mean –0.3 sessions/6) but increased in FAM-ACT patients (mean +0.3 sessions/6) and SPs (mean +0.5 sessions/6). During hybrid programs, patients choosing virtual attendance were more often female, living with children, have food insecurity and difficulty prioritizing diabetes over other demands. Conclusions: Group DSME delivered via hybrid sessions maintained participant engagement during a large-scale disruption in health care access by addressing language, health and social needs, life demands, and technological barriers. Trial registry: The underlying trial was registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03812614, 01/18/2019).

Background: Veterans Affairs Medical Centers offer multiple weight-loss treatments, including a comprehensive lifestyle intervention program (i.e., MOVE!), anti-obesity medications (AOMs) and bariatric surgery. Yet, most eligible veterans do not receive these treatments. Aim: To describe the design, rationale, and planned evaluation of a comprehensive Weight Management and Metabolic Health program (WMMHP), consisting of (1) weight-focused visits with physicians or pharmacists trained in obesity medicine; (2) patient-centered use of available weight-loss treatments; and (3) coordinated, team-based care. Methods: This is a quality improvement program implemented within the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System. WMMHP eligibility criteria include body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m ² or BMI ≥ 27 kg/m ² and ≥ 1 weight-related condition and participation in the MOVE! program. We plan to conduct an 18-month retrospective program evaluation using a propensity-matched cohort analysis to estimate the added benefit of WMMHP vs. MOVE! alone. The primary outcome will be mean change in weight at 18 months after baseline. Secondary outcomes will include mean weight loss at 6, 12, and 24 months, percentage of patients achieving thresholds of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% weight loss, initial prescriptions for and refilled prescriptions as a measure of adherence to AOMs, and referrals to, engagement with, and completion of bariatric surgery. We will also examine between-group differences in health system resource utilization. Discussion: The WMMHP is an innovative approach to improving treatment and outcomes for veterans with overweight and obesity. If effective, its components may inform obesity care delivery in VA and non-VA settings.

Background: The World Health Organization HEARTS Technical Package is a widely implemented global initiative to improve the primary care management of cardiovascular disease risk factors. The study’s objective is to report outcomes from a pilot implementation trial of integrated hypertension and diabetes management based on the HEARTS model in Guatemala. Methods: We conducted a single-arm pilot implementation trial over six months from October 2023 to May 2024 in 11 Guatemalan Ministry of Health primary care facilities in two districts. The pilot evaluated a package of five HEARTS-aligned implementation strategies to improve the pharmacological treatment of hypertension and diabetes. The primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability, measured through 20 structured interviews with Ministry of Health employees and by examining enrolment and retention data. Secondary outcomes included a suite of implementation and clinical outcomes, including treatment rates. When baseline data were available, we analyzed secondary outcomes as the net change from baseline or using an interrupted time series approach. Results: The study enrolled 964 patients, of whom 58.8% had hypertension only, 30.4% had diabetes only, and 10.8% had both conditions. Surveys on feasibility and acceptability among Ministry of Health staff had a median score of 5.0 (IQR: 5.0 to 5.0) and 5.0 (IQR range: 4.8 to 5.0), respectively, exceeding the prespecified benchmark of ≥3.5. Both districts achieved the prespecified benchmark of enrolling ≥25 hypertension patients and ≥25 diabetes patients. Only 36% of patients attended a follow-up visit within three months, lower than the prespecified benchmark of ≥75%. Monthly treatment rates during the pilot increased by 22.3 (95% CI: 16.2 to 28.4; P < 0.001) and 3.5 (95% CI: –1.6 to 8.7; P = 0.17) patients per month for hypertension and diabetes, respectively. Conclusions: Implementation of an integrated hypertension and diabetes model based on HEARTS was generally feasible and acceptable in the Ministry of Health in Guatemala. Findings can refine national scale-up in Guatemala and inform HEARTS implementation projects in other settings.

People seeking asylum are susceptible to head injury (HI) due to exposure to various forms of violence including war, torture, or interpersonal violence. Yet, the extents to which clinicians assess HI, and if so, what the associated characteristics are, are not well known. We analyzed 200 U.S.-based medico-legal affidavits using descriptive, multivariate regression, and thematic analysis. Head injury was documented in 38% of affidavits. Those who experienced physical violence were eight times likelier to experience HI than those who did not experience physical violence. Five themes emerged: (1) HI occurred commonly in the context of interpersonal violence (44%), followed by militarized violence (33%); (2) mechanisms of HI included direct blows to the head and asphyxiation, suggesting potential for both traumatic brain injury and brain injury from oxygen deprivation; (3) HI was often recurrent and concurrent with other physical injuries; (4) co-morbid psychiatric and post-concussive symptoms made it challenging to assess neurological and psychiatric etiologies; and (5) overall, there was a paucity of assessments and documentation of HI and sequelae. Among individuals assessed for asylum claims, HI is common, often recurrent, occurring in the context of interpersonal violence, and concurrent with psychological and other physical trauma. Physical violence is an important risk factor for HI, which should be assessed when physical violence is reported.

Background: A growing number of Americans are enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs). Enrollees in HDHPs, particularly those with chronic conditions, face high out-of-pocket costs and often delay or forgo needed care owing to cost. These challenges could be mitigated by the use of cost-conscious strategies when seeking health care, such as discussing costs with providers, saving for medical expenses, and using web-based tools to compare prices, but few HDHP enrollees engage in such cost-conscious strategies. A novel behavioral intervention could enable HDHP enrollees with chronic conditions to adopt these strategies, but it is unknown which intervention features would be most valued and used by this patient population. Objective: This study aimed to assess preferences among HDHP enrollees with chronic conditions for a novel behavioral intervention that supports the use of cost-conscious strategies when planning for and seeking health care. Methods: In an exploratory sequential mixed methods study among HDHP enrollees with chronic conditions, we conducted 20 semistructured telephone interviews and then surveyed 432 participants using a national internet survey panel. Participants were adult HDHP enrollees with diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or asthma. The interviews and survey assessed participants’ health care experiences when using HDHPs and their preferences for the content, modality, and frequency of use of a novel intervention that would support their use of cost-conscious strategies when seeking health care. Results: Approximately half (11/20, 55%) of the interview participants reported barriers to using cost-conscious strategies. These included not knowing where to find information and worrying that the use of cost-conscious strategies would be very time consuming. Most (18/20, 90%) interviewees who had discussed costs with providers, saved for medical expenses, or used web-based price comparison tools found these strategies to be helpful for managing their health care costs. Most (17/20, 85%) interviewees expressed interest in an intervention delivered through a website or phone app that would help them compare prices for services at different locations. Survey participants were most interested in learning to compare prices and quality, followed by discussing costs with their providers and putting aside money for care, through a website-based or email-based intervention that they would use a few times a year. Conclusions: Regular use of cost-conscious strategies could mitigate financial barriers faced by HDHP enrollees with chronic conditions. Interventions to encourage the use of cost-conscious strategies should be delivered through a web-based modality and focus on helping these patients in navigating their HDHPs to better manage their out-of-pocket spending.

Background: Diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) programs have struggled to deliver sustainable, effective support for adults with diabetes (AWDs) to improve self-management behaviors, achieve glycemic goals, and reduce risk for complications. One largely untapped resource for this support is AWDs’ social networks. Fifty to 75% of AWDs have an unpaid family member or friend (“support person”) who provides ongoing help with diabetes management. However, DSMES interventions to date lack structured and effective approaches to directly engage support persons in AWDs’ diabetes management.Methods: This parallel arm randomized trial is designed to determine the effectiveness of Family Support for Health Action (FAM-ACT), a novel community health worker (CHW)-delivered program focused on educating and supporting patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and their support persons (SPs), relative to an established, CHW-delivered, individual patient-focused DSMES and care management (I-DSMES) intervention. Both interventions were developed using a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach.The study will be conducted in partnership with an urban Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) serving a low-income, Latino/a community, with target enrollment of 268 dyads consisting of an FQHC patient with T2D with high HbA1c and an SP. Patient-SP dyads will be randomized to receive FAM-ACT or I-DSMES over 6 months.The primary outcome is change in patient HbA1c from baseline to 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes include 12-month change in HbA1c, changes in patient blood pressure, diabetes self-management behaviors, diabetes distress, patient activation, diabetes self-efficacy, and perceptions of and satisfaction with SP support for diabetes. Secondary SP outcomes include self-efficacy for helping the patient with diabetes management and SP distress about the patient’s diabetes. We also will assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient’s ability to manage diabetes.Discussion: This study will inform scalable, evidence-based approaches that leverage family support to help AWDs improve and sustain self-management strategies that underpin optimal management of multiple diabetes complication risk factors. The protocol is designed for and evaluated with a low-income and predominantly Latino/a community, which may increase applicability to other similar communities. The COVID-19 pandemic presented several challenges to study protocol and intervention delivery; modifications made to address these challenges are described.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03812614. Registered on 18 January 2019.

We read with interest the recent article by Dunne et al. (1) outlining the women’s leadership gap in diabetes. The authors’ detailed examination of gender repre