Effectiveness of a Health Coaching Intervention for Patient-Family Dyads to Improve Outcomes Among Adults With...

More than 75% of US adults with diabetes do not meet treatment goals. More effective support from family and friends ("supporters") may improve diabetes management and outcomes.

To determine if the Caring Others Increasing Engagement in Patient Aligned Care Teams (CO-IMPACT) intervention improves patient activation, diabetes management, and outcomes compared with standard care.

This randomized clinical trial was conducted from November 2016 to August 2019 among participants recruited from 2 Veterans Health Administration primary care sites. All patient participants were adults aged 30 to 70 years with diabetes who had hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels greater than 8% of total hemoglobin (to convert to proportion of total hemoglobin, multiply by 0.01) or systolic blood pressure (SBP) higher than 150 mm Hg; each participating patient had an adult supporter. Of 1119 recruited, 239 patient-supporter dyads were enrolled between November 2016 and May 2018, randomized 1:1 to receive the CO-IMPACT intervention or standard care, and followed up for 12 to 15 months. Investigators and analysts were blinded to group assignment.

Patient-supporter dyads received a health coaching session focused on dyadic information sharing and positive support techniques, then 12 months of biweekly automated monitoring telephone calls to prompt dyadic actions to meet diabetes goals, coaching calls to help dyads prepare for primary care visits, and after-visit summaries. Standard-care dyads received general diabetes education materials only.

Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted according to baseline dyad assignment. Primary prespecified outcomes were 12-month changes in Patient Activation Measure-13 (PAM-13) and UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) 5-year diabetes-specific cardiac event risk scores. Secondary outcomes included 12-month changes in HbA1c levels, SBP, diabetes self-management behaviors, diabetes distress, diabetes management self-efficacy, and satisfaction with health system support for the involvement of family supporters. Changes in outcome measures between baseline and 12 months were analyzed using linear regression models.

A total of 239 dyads enrolled; among patient participants, the mean (SD) age was 60 (8.9) years, and 231 (96.7%) were male. The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c level was 8.5% (1.6%) and SBP was 140.2 mm Hg (18.4 mm Hg). A total of 168 patients (70.3%) lived with their enrolled supporter; 229 patients (95.8%) had complete 12-month outcome data. In intention-to-treat analyses vs standard care, CO-IMPACT patients had greater 12-month improvements in PAM-13 scores (intervention effect, 2.60 points; 95% CI, 0.02-5.18 points; P = .048) but nonsignificant differences in UKPDS 5-year cardiac risk (intervention effect, 1.01 points; 95% CI, -0.74 to 2.77 points; P = .26). Patients in the CO-IMPACT arm also had greater 12-month improvements in healthy eating (intervention effect, 0.71 d/wk; 95% CI, 0.20-1.22 d/wk; P = .007), diabetes self-efficacy (intervention effect, 0.40 points; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71 points; P = .01), and satisfaction with health system support for the family supporter participants' involvement (intervention effect, 0.28 points; 95% CI, 0.07-0.49 points; P = .009); however, the 2 arms had similar improvements in HbA1c levels and in other measures.

In this randomized clinical trial, the CO-IMPACT intervention successfully engaged patient-supporter dyads and led to improved patient activation and self-efficacy. Physiological outcomes improved similarly in both arms. More intensive direct coaching of supporters, or targeting patients with less preexisting support or fewer diabetes management resources, may have greater impact.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02328326.