Personalized decision support in type 2 diabetes mellitus: Current evidence and future directions

Current Diabetes Reports

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 205-212

  Wilkinson, Michael J ^a   Nathan, Aviva G ^a   Huang, Elbert S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision aid; Decision support; Decision support tool; Personalized decision support; Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Indexed keywords

HEMOGLOBIN A1C; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; AWARENESS; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DIABETES CARE PROTOCOL; DIABETES MELLITUS MEDICATION CHOICE DECISION AID; DIABETES WIZARD; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTERNET; KADIS; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MOTIVATION; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SELF CARE;

EID: 84878649747     PISSN: 15344827     EISSN: 15390829     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11892-012-0348-6     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: A patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35:1364-79.
2. Ismail-Beigi F, Moghissi E, Tiktin M, et al. Individualizing glycemic targets in type 2 diabetes mellitus: implications of recent clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:554-9.
3. American Diabetes Association. Executive summary: standards of medical care in diabetes - 2012. Diabetes Care. 2012;35 Suppl 1:S4-S10.
4. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998;352:837-53.
5. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, et al. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1577-89.
6. The ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2560-72.
7. Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, et al. Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:129-39.
8. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group. Effects of intesive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2545-59.
9. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;CD001431.
10. Corser W, Holmes-Rovner M, Lein C, Gossain V. A shared decision-making primary care intervention for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2007;33:700-8.
11. •• Mullan RJ, Montori VM, Shah ND, et al. The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1560-8. This article describes use of a personalized decision support tool that considered patient preferences in treatment decisions. Its use increased patient involvement, as well as aspects of knowledge and acceptability.
12. Weymiller AJ, Montori VM, Jones LA, et al. Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1076-82.
13. Nannenga MR, Montori VM, Weymiller AJ, et al. A treatment decision aid may increase patient trust in the diabetes specialist. The Statin Choice randomized trial. Health Expect. 2009;12:38-44.
14. Abadie R, Weymiller AJ, Tilburt J, et al. Clinician's use of the Statin Choice decision aid in patients with diabetes: A videographic study nested in a randomized trial. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15:492-7.
15. •• Mann DM, Ponieman D, Montori VM, et al. The Statin Choice decision aid in primary care: A randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:138-40. This article describes recent use of the Statin Choice tool, an important example of a personalized decision support tool that considers patient preferences in treatment decisions.
16. Cleveringa FG, Gorter KJ, van den Donk M, Rutten GE. Combined task delegation, computerized decision support, and feedback improve cardiovascular risk for type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:2273-5.
17. Holbrook A, Thabane L, Keshavjee K, et al. Individualized electronic decision support and reminders to improve diabetes care in the community: COMPETE II randomized trial. CMAJ. 2009;181:37-44.
18. Hunt JS, Siemienczuk J, Gillanders W, et al. The impact of a physician-directed health information technology system on diabetes outcomes in primary care: A pre- And post-implementation study. Informat Prim Care. 2009;17:165-74.
19. Maclean CD, Gagnon M, Callas P, Littenberg B. The Vermont diabetes information system: A cluster randomized trial of a population based decision support system. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:1303-10.
20. Augstein P, Vogt L, Kohnert KD, et al. Translation of personalized decision support into routine diabetes care. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4:1532-9.
21. O'Connor PJ, Sperl-Hillen JM, Rush WA, et al. Impact of electronic health record clinical decision support on diabetes care: A randomized trial. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9:12-21.
22. Quinn CC, Shardell MD, Terrin ML, et al. Cluster-randomized trial of a mobile phone personalized behavioral intervention for blood glucose control. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1934-42.
23. Saenz A, Brito M, Moron I, et al. Development and validation of a computer application to aid the physician's decision-making process at the start of and during treatment with insulin in type 2 diabetes: A randomized and controlled trial. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6:581-8.
24. Leal J, Gray AM, Clarke PM. Development of life-expectancy tables for people with type 2 diabetes. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:834-9.
25. • Rodbard D, Vigersky RA. Design of a decision support system to help clinicians manage glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5:402-11. From the perspective of personalization, this article is important because the tool allows physicians to set hemoglobin A1c and other glycemia goals. This introduces the potential for personalization, if physicians using the tool set glycemic goals on the basis of a consideration of patient clinical factors or preferences.