Protocol for the ADDITION-Plus study: a randomised controlled trial of an individually-tailored behaviour change intervention among people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes under intensive UK general practice care
Abstract:BackgroundThe increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses both clinical and public health challenges. Cost-effective approaches to prevent progression of the disease in primary care are needed. Evidence suggests that intensive multifactorial interventions including medication and behaviour change can significantly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among patients with established type 2 diabetes, and that patient education in self-management can improve short-term outcomes. However, existing stud… Show more
“…Self‐efficacy to engage in more physical activity was measured by two items identical to the ones used in Griffin et al . (2011) and Kinmonth et al . (2008) ( r = .52; α = .67).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…All studies were conducted in England between 2001 and 2012 and included data on 2,511 participants. The main results or protocol papers of these five data sets are published (Godino et al ., 2012; Griffin et al ., 2011; Kinmonth et al ., 2008; Marteau, Aveyard, et al ., 2012; Watkinson, van Sluijs, Sutton, Marteau, & Griffin, 2010). The analyses reported in this paper are novel and have not been reported elsewhere.…”
ObjectivesUnhealthy behaviour is more common amongst the deprived, thereby contributing to health inequalities. The evidence that the gap between intention and behaviour is greater amongst the more deprived is limited and inconsistent. We tested this hypothesis using objective and self‐report measures of three behaviours, both individual‐ and area‐level indices of socio‐economic status, and pooling data from five studies.DesignSecondary data analysis.MethodsMultiple linear regressions and meta‐analyses of data on physical activity, diet, and medication adherence in smoking cessation from 2,511 participants.ResultsAcross five studies, we found no evidence for an interaction between deprivation and intention in predicting objective or self‐report measures of behaviour. Using objectively measured behaviour and area‐level deprivation, meta‐analyses suggested that the gap between self‐efficacy and behaviour was greater amongst the more deprived (B = .17 [95% CI
= 0.02, 0.31]).ConclusionsWe find no compelling evidence to support the hypothesis that the intention–behaviour gap is greater amongst the more deprived.
Statement of contribution
What is already known on this subject?
Unhealthy behaviour is more common in those who are more deprived.This may reflect a larger gap between intentions and behaviour amongst the more deprived.The limited evidence to date testing this hypothesis is mixed.
What does this study add?
In the most robust study to date, combining results from five trials, we found no evidence for this explanation.The gap between intentions and behaviour did not vary with deprivation for the following: diet, physical activity, or medication adherence in smoking cessation.We did, however, find a larger gap between perceived control over behaviour (self‐efficacy) and behaviour in those more deprived.These findings add to existing evidence to suggest that higher rates of unhealthier behaviour in more deprived groups may be reduced by the following:
Strengthening behavioural control mechanisms (such as executive function and non‐conscious processes) or Behaviour change interventions that bypass behavioural control mechanisms.
“…Self‐efficacy to engage in more physical activity was measured by two items identical to the ones used in Griffin et al . (2011) and Kinmonth et al . (2008) ( r = .52; α = .67).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…All studies were conducted in England between 2001 and 2012 and included data on 2,511 participants. The main results or protocol papers of these five data sets are published (Godino et al ., 2012; Griffin et al ., 2011; Kinmonth et al ., 2008; Marteau, Aveyard, et al ., 2012; Watkinson, van Sluijs, Sutton, Marteau, & Griffin, 2010). The analyses reported in this paper are novel and have not been reported elsewhere.…”
ObjectivesUnhealthy behaviour is more common amongst the deprived, thereby contributing to health inequalities. The evidence that the gap between intention and behaviour is greater amongst the more deprived is limited and inconsistent. We tested this hypothesis using objective and self‐report measures of three behaviours, both individual‐ and area‐level indices of socio‐economic status, and pooling data from five studies.DesignSecondary data analysis.MethodsMultiple linear regressions and meta‐analyses of data on physical activity, diet, and medication adherence in smoking cessation from 2,511 participants.ResultsAcross five studies, we found no evidence for an interaction between deprivation and intention in predicting objective or self‐report measures of behaviour. Using objectively measured behaviour and area‐level deprivation, meta‐analyses suggested that the gap between self‐efficacy and behaviour was greater amongst the more deprived (B = .17 [95% CI
= 0.02, 0.31]).ConclusionsWe find no compelling evidence to support the hypothesis that the intention–behaviour gap is greater amongst the more deprived.
Statement of contribution
What is already known on this subject?
Unhealthy behaviour is more common in those who are more deprived.This may reflect a larger gap between intentions and behaviour amongst the more deprived.The limited evidence to date testing this hypothesis is mixed.
What does this study add?
In the most robust study to date, combining results from five trials, we found no evidence for this explanation.The gap between intentions and behaviour did not vary with deprivation for the following: diet, physical activity, or medication adherence in smoking cessation.We did, however, find a larger gap between perceived control over behaviour (self‐efficacy) and behaviour in those more deprived.These findings add to existing evidence to suggest that higher rates of unhealthier behaviour in more deprived groups may be reduced by the following:
Strengthening behavioural control mechanisms (such as executive function and non‐conscious processes) or Behaviour change interventions that bypass behavioural control mechanisms.
“…The design and rationale for the ADDITION-Plus study have been reported previously (2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007) [22]. In brief, ADDITION-Plus is a randomised controlled trial nested within the intensive treatment arm of the ADDITION-Cambridge study, which evaluated the efficacy of a facilitator-led, theory-based behaviour change intervention for recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients.…”
Sleep duration has a J-shaped association with CCMR in individuals with diabetes, independent of potential confounding. Health promotion interventions might highlight the importance of adequate sleep in this high-risk population.
“…Full details of the intervention have been described previously (see ESM) [9]. In brief, the intervention was delivered by three female trained lifestyle facilitators, who were not part of the general practice team.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Full details are reported elsewhere [9]. Participants also completed the consequences and treatment control subscales (11 items) of the Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised [31, 32] and a nine-item closed-response questionnaire covering basic knowledge of diabetes and its management [33].…”
Aims/hypothesisThe aim of this study was to assess whether or not a theory-based behaviour change intervention delivered by trained and quality-assured lifestyle facilitators can achieve and maintain improvements in physical activity, dietary change, medication adherence and smoking cessation in people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes.MethodsAn explanatory randomised controlled trial was conducted in 34 general practices in Eastern England (Anglo–Danish–Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care-Plus [ADDITION-Plus]). In all, 478 patients meeting eligibility criteria (age 40 to 69 years with recently diagnosed screen or clinically detected diabetes) were individually randomised to receive either intensive treatment (n = 239) or intensive treatment plus a theory-based behaviour change intervention led by a facilitator external to the general practice team (n = 239). Randomisation was central and independent using a partial minimisation procedure to balance stratifiers between treatment arms. Facilitators taught patients skills to facilitate change in and maintenance of key health behaviours, including goal setting, self-monitoring and building habits. Primary outcomes included physical activity energy expenditure (individually calibrated heart rate monitoring and movement sensing), change in objectively measured fruit and vegetable intake (plasma vitamin C), medication adherence (plasma drug levels) and smoking status (plasma cotinine levels) at 1 year. Measurements, data entry and laboratory analysis were conducted with staff unaware of participants’ study group allocation.ResultsOf 475 participants still alive, 444 (93%; intervention group 95%, comparison group 92%) attended 1-year follow-up. There were no significant differences between groups in physical activity (difference: +1.50 kJ kg−1 day−1; 95% CI −1.74, 4.74), plasma vitamin C (difference: −3.84 μmol/l; 95% CI −8.07, 0.38), smoking (OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.77, 2.43) and plasma drug levels (difference in metformin levels: −119.5 μmol/l; 95% CI −335.0, 95.9). Cardiovascular risk factors and self-reported behaviour improved in both groups with no significant differences between groups.Conclusions/interpretationFor patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes receiving intensive treatment in UK primary care, a facilitator-led individually tailored behaviour change intervention did not improve objectively measured health behaviours or cardiovascular risk factors over 1 year.Trial registrationISRCTN99175498FundingThe trial is supported by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, National Health Service R&D support funding (including the Primary Care Research and Diabetes Research Networks) and National Institute of Health Research under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme. The Primary Care Unit is supported by NIHR Research funds. Bio-Rad provided equipment for HbA1c testing during the screening phase.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s001...
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.