OBJECTIVE -To review performance characteristics of 12 insulin infusion protocols.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -We systematically identify and compare 12 protocols and then apply the protocols to generate insulin recommendations in the management of a patient with hyperglycemia. The main focus involves a comparison of insulin doses and patterns of insulin administration.RESULTS -There is great variability in protocols. Areas of variation include differences in initiation and titration of insulin, use of bolus dosing, requirements for calculation in adjustment of the insulin infusion, and method of insulin protocol adjustments. Insulin recommendations for a sample patient are calculated to highlight differences between protocols, including the patterns and ranges of insulin dose recommended (range 27-115 units [mean Ϯ SD 66.7 Ϯ 27.9]), amount recommended for glucose readings Ͼ200 mg/dl, and adjustments nearing target glucose.CONCLUSIONS -The lack of consensus in the delivery of intravenous insulin infusions is reflected in the wide variability of practice noted in this survey. This mandates close attention to the choice of a protocol. One protocol may not suffice for all patients.
Introduction: Online Diabetes Prevention Programs (DPPs) can be scaled-up and delivered broadly. However, little is known about real-world effectiveness and how outcomes compare with in-person DPP. This study examined online DPP weight loss and participation outcomes and secondarily compared outcomes among participating individuals with parallel in-person interventions. Study design: A large non-randomized trial supplemented by a comparative analysis of participating individuals from a concurrent trial of two parallel in-person programs: in-person DPP and the Veterans Administration’s standard of care weight loss program (MOVE!). Setting/participants: Obese/overweight Veterans with prediabetes enrolled in online DPP (n=268) between 2013 and 2014. Similar eligibility criteria were used to enroll in-person participants between 2012 and 2014 (n=273 in-person DPP, n=114 MOVE!) within a separate trial. Intervention: Online DPP included a virtual group format, live e-coach, weekly modules delivered asynchronously and wireless home scales. In-person programs included eight to 22 group-based, face-to-face sessions. Main outcomes measures: Weight change at 6 and 12 months, using wirelessly uploaded home scale data or electronic medical record weights from clinical in-person visits. Outcomes were analyzed between 2015 and 2017. Results: From 1,182 invitations, 268 (23%) participants enrolled in online DPP. Among these, 158 (56%) completed eight or more modules; mean weight change was –4.7 kg at 6 months and –4.0 kg at 12 months. In a supplemental analysis of participants completing one or more sessions/modules, online DPP participants were most likely to complete eight or more sessions/modules (87% online DPP vs 59% in-person DPP vs 55% MOVE!, p<0.001). Online and in-person DPP participants lost significantly more weight than MOVE! participants at 6 and 12 months; there was no significant difference in weight change between online and in-person DPP. Conclusions: An intensive, multifaceted online DPP intervention had higher participation but similar weight loss compared to in-person DPP. An intensive, multifaceted online DPP intervention may be as effective as in-person DPP and help expand reach to those at risk.
BackgroundThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is an effective lifestyle intervention to reduce incidence of type 2 diabetes. However, there are gaps in knowledge about how to implement DPP. The aim of this study was to evaluate implementation of DPP via assessment of a clinical demonstration in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).MethodsA 12-month pragmatic clinical trial compared weight outcomes between the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Prevention Program (VA-DPP) and the usual care MOVE!® weight management program (MOVE!). Eligible participants had a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 (or BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 with one obesity-related condition), prediabetes (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 5.7–6.5% or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 100–125 mg/dL), lived within 60 min of their VA site, and had not participated in a weight management program within the last year. Established evaluation and implementation frameworks were used to guide the implementation evaluation. Implementation barriers and facilitators, delivery fidelity, participant satisfaction, and implementation costs were assessed. Using micro-costing methods, costs for assessment of eligibility and scheduling and maintaining adherence per participant, as well as cost of delivery per session, were also assessed.ResultsSeveral barriers and facilitators to Reach, Adoption, Implementation, Effectiveness and Maintenance were identified; barriers related to Reach were the largest challenge encountered by site teams. Fidelity was higher for VA-DPP delivery compared to MOVE! for five of seven domains assessed. Participant satisfaction was high in both programs, but higher in VA-DPP for most items. Based on micro-costing methods, cost of assessment for eligibility was $68/individual assessed, cost of scheduling and maintaining adherence was $328/participant, and cost of delivery was $101/session.ConclusionsMulti-faceted strategies are needed to reach targeted participants and successfully implement DPP. Costs for assessing patients for eligibility need to be carefully considered while still maximizing reach to the targeted population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.