Effects of a shared decision-making guide tool on confidence in diabetes management using continuous glucose monitoring among diabetes nurses: a randomized controlled trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57177/idn.v19.346Keywords:
Continuous glucose monitoring, Shared decision-making, Real-time continuous glucose monitoring, intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoringAbstract
Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and their healthcare professionals in developing treatment plans is increasingly recognized as central to improving treatment adherence and, ultimately, patient outcomes. This study investigated the effects of a SDM guide tool on confidence in diabetes management using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) among diabetes nurses.
Methods: Twenty-seven diabetes nurses were randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group. Participants in both groups received a 60-min basic course on CGM. Participants in the intervention group underwent a 90-min advanced course using a SDM guide tool. Confidence (13 items), attitude (11 items), knowledge (16 items), and consultation style (5 items) were assessed at baseline and 1 month after the intervention. Evaluation of the tool (13 items) was assessed in the intervention group.
Results: Compared to the control group, the intervention group had greater changes in confidence score after the intervention (1.4 ± 1.5 vs. 2.6 ± 1.5 points; P < 0.001). There were no significant changes in the attitude, knowledge, and consultation style scores between the groups. The evaluation score with the tool was relatively high.
Conclusion: This program using a SDM guide tool may be effective in increasing confidence in diabetes management using CGM among diabetes nurses.
Downloads
References
1.
Cappon G, Vettoretti M, Sparacino G, Facchinetti A. Continuous glucose monitoring sensors for diabetes management: a review of technologies and applications. Diabetes Metab J 2019; 43(4): 383–97. doi: 10.4093/dmj.2019.0121
2.
Kluemper JR, Smith A, Wobeter B. Diabetes: the role of continuous glucose monitoring. Drugs Context 2022; 11: 2021-9-13. doi: 10.7573/dic.2021-9-13
3.
Galindo RJ, Aleppo G. Continuous glucose monitoring: the achievement of 100 years of innovation in diabetes technology. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2020; 170: 108502. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108502
4.
Elbalshy M, Haszard J, Smith H, Kuroko S, Galland B, Oliver N, et al. Effect of divergent continuous glucose monitoring technologies on glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabet Med 2022; 39(8): e14854. doi: 10.1111/dme.14854
5.
Teo E, Hassan N, Tam W, Koh S. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in maintaining glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and meta-analysis. Diabetologia 2022; 65(4): 604–19. doi: 10.1007/s00125-021-05648-4
6.
Filippi MK, Oser SM, Alai J, Brooks-Greisen A, Oser TK. A team-based training for continuous glucose monitoring in diabetes care: mixed methods pilot implementation study in primary care practices. JMIR Form Res 2023; 7: e45189. doi: 10.2196/45189
7.
Hannon TS, Moore CM, Cheng ER, Lynch DO, Yazel-Smith LG, Claxton GE, et al. Codesigned shared decision-making diabetes management plan tool for adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus and their parents: prototype development and pilot test. J Particip Med 2018; 10(2): e8. doi: 10.2196/jopm.9652
8.
Adolfsson P, Parkin CG, Thomas A, Krinelke LG. Selecting the appropriate continuous glucose monitoring system – a practical approach. Eur Endocrinol 2018; 14(1): 24–9. doi: 10.17925/EE.2018.14.1.24
9.
Brockamp C, Landgraf R, Müller UA, Müller-Wieland D, Petrak F, Uebel T, et al. Shared decision making, diagnostic evaluation, and pharmacotherapy in type 2 diabetes. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2023; 120(47): 804–10. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2023.0219
10.
Michael SK, Elizabeth TM, Zackary DB. Shared decision-making and outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns 2017; 100(12): 2159–71. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.06.030
11.
Ruissen MM, Montori VM, Hargraves IG, Branda ME, León García M, de Koning EJ, et al. Problem-based shared decision-making in diabetes care: a secondary analysis of video-recorded encounters. BMJ Evid Based Med 2023; 28(3): 157–63. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112067
12.
Coronado-Vázquez V, Canet-Fajas C, Delgado-Marroquín MT, Magallón-Botaya R, Romero-Martín M, Gómez-Salgado J. Interventions to facilitate shared decision-making using decision aids with patients in primary health care: a systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99(32): e21389. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021389
13.
Lu C, Li X, Yang K. Trends in shared decision-making studies from 2009 to 2018: a bibliometric analysis. Front Public Health 2019; 7: 384. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00384
14.
Brown SL, Salmon P. Reconciling the theory and reality of shared decision-making: a ‘matching’ approach to practitioner leadership. Health Expect 2019; 22(3): 275–83. doi: 10.1111/hex.12853
15.
Carlson AL, Mullen DM, Bergenstal RM. Clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19(S2): S4–11. doi: 10.1089/dia.2017.0024
16.
Makwero M, Muula AS, Anyanwu FC, Igumbor J. An insight into patients’ perspectives on barriers affecting participation in shared decision making among patients with diabetes mellitus in Malawi. BMC Prim Care 2022; 23(1): 42. doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01635-9
17.
Moin T, Duru OK, Turk N, Chon JS, Frosch DL, Martin JM, et al. Effectiveness of shared decision-making for diabetes prevention: 12-month results from the Prediabetes Informed Decision and Education (PRIDE) trial. J Gen Intern Med 2019; 34(11): 2652–9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05238-6
18.
Madievsky R, Vu A, Cheng F, Chon J, Turk N, Krueger A, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a shared decision making intervention for diabetes prevention for women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus: the Gestational diabetes Risk Attenuation for New Diabetes (GRAND study). Contemp Clin Trials 2023; 124: 107007. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2022.107007
19.
Wiley J, Westbrook M, Greenfield JR, Day RO, Braithwaite J. Shared decision-making: the perspectives of young adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Patient Prefer Adherence 2014; 8: 423–35. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S57707
20.
den Ouden H, Vos RC, Reidsma C, Rutten GE. Shared decision making in type 2 diabetes with a support decision tool that takes into account clinical factors, the intensity of treatment and patient preferences: design of a cluster randomised (OPTIMAL) trial. BMC Fam Pract 2015; 16: 27. doi: 10.1186/s12875-015-0230-0
21.
Wang MJ, Hung LC, Lo YT. Glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: role of health literacy and shared decision-making. Patient Prefer Adherence 2019; 13: 871–9. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S202110
22.
Branda ME, LeBlanc A, Shah ND, Tiedje K, Ruud K, Van Houten H, et al. Shared decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13: 301. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-301
23.
Wollny A, Löffler C, Drewelow E, Altiner A, Helbig C, Daubmann A, et al. Shared decision making and patient-centeredness for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care-results of the cluster-randomised controlled DEBATE trial. BMC Fam Pract 2021; 22(1): 93. doi: 10.1186/s12875-021-01436-6
24.
Fujimoto S, Ogawa T, Komukai K, Nakayama T. Effect of education on physical and occupational therapists’ perceptions of clinical practice guidelines and shared decision making: a randomized controlled trial. J Phys Ther Sci 2022; 34(6): 445–53. doi: 10.1589/jpts.34.445
25.
Consoli SM, Duclos M, Grimaldi A, Penfornis A, Bineau S, Sabin B, et al. OPADIA study: is a patient questionnaire useful for enhancing physician-patient shared decision making on physical activity micro-objectives in diabetes. Adv Ther 2020; 37(5): 2317–36. doi: 10.1007/s12325-020-01336-8
26.
Friedman JG, Cardona Matos Z, Szmuilowicz ED, Aleppo G. Use of continuous glucose monitors to manage type 1 diabetes mellitus: progress, challenges, and recommendations. Pharmgenomics Pers Med 2023; 16: 263–76. doi: 10.2147/PGPM.S374663
27.
Kubiak T, Mann CG, Barnard KC, Heinemann L. Psychosocial aspects of continuous glucose monitoring: connecting to the patients’ experience. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016; 10(4): 859–63. doi: 10.1177/1932296816651450
28.
Sakane N, Hirota Y, Yamamoto A, Miura J, Takaike H, Hoshina S, et al. Association of scan frequency with CGM-derived metrics and influential factors in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetol Int 2023; 15(1): 109–16. doi: 10.1007/s13340-023-00655-9
29.
Takaesu Y, Aoki Y, Tomo Y, Tsuboi T, Ishii M, Imamura Y, et al. Implementation of a shared decision-making training program for clinicians based on the major depressive disorder guidelines in Japan: a multi-center cluster randomized trial. Front Psychiatry 2022; 13: 967750. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.967750
30.
Davis S, Roudsari A, Raworth R, Courtney KL, MacKay L. Shared decision-making using personal health record technology: a scoping review at the crossroads. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24(4): 857–66. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw172
31.
Joshi S, Verma R, Lathia T, Selvan C, Tanna S, Saraf A, et al. Fitterfly diabetes CGM digital therapeutics program for glycemic control and weight management in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: real-world effectiveness evaluation. JMIR Diabetes 2023; 8: e43292. doi: 10.2196/43292
32.
Bennett C, Graham ID, Kristjansson E, Kearing SA, Clay KF, O’Connor AM. Validation of a preparation for decision making scale. Patient Educ Couns 2010; 78(1): 130–3. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.012.00
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yaeko Kawaguchi, Seiko Sakane, Akiko Suganuma, Masayuki Domichi, Naoki Sakane
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
