Objective:The objectives of this study were to demonstrate the feasibility of telehealth technology to provide a team approach to diabetes care for rural patients and determine its effect on patient outcomes when compared with face-to-face diabetes visits.Materials and Methods:An evaluation of a patient-centered interdisciplinary team approach to diabetes management compared telehealth with face-to-face visits on receipt of recommended preventive guidelines, vascular risk factor control, patient satisfaction, and diabetes self-management at baseline and 1, 2, and 3 years postintervention.Results:One-year postintervention the receipt of recommended dilated eye exams increased 31% and 43% among telehealth and face-to-face patients, respectively (p=0.28). Control of two or more risk factors increased 37% and 69% (p=0.21). Patient diabetes care satisfaction rates increased 191% and 131% among telehealth and face-to-face patients, respectively (p=0.51). A comparison of telehealth with face-to-face patients resulted in increased self-reported blood glucose monitoring as instructed (97% vs. 89%; p=0.63) and increased dietary adherence (244% vs. 159%; p=0.86), respectively. Receipt of a monofilament foot test showed a significantly greater improvement among face-to-face patients (17% vs. 35%; p=0.01) at 1 year postintervention, but this difference disappeared in years 2 and 3.Conclusions:Telehealth proved to be an effective mode for the provision of diabetes care to rural patients. Few differences were detected in the delivery of a team approach to diabetes management via telehealth compared with face-to-face visits on receipt of preventive care services, vascular risk factor control, patient satisfaction, and patient self-management. A team approach using telehealth may be a viable strategy for addressing the unique challenges faced by patients living in rural communities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Department of Health and Human Resources. National Diabetes Fact Sheet. 2007. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2007.pdf. 2011 March 1.
2.
American Diabetes A. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2007. Diabetes Care, 2008; 31:596–615.
3.
The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Medical Guidelines for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus: The AACE s System of Intensive Diabetes Self-Management −2002 Update. Endocr Pract, 2002; 8,Suppl. 1:40–82.
4.
Cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic control, intensified hypertension control, serum cholesterol level reduction for type 2 diabetes. JAMA, 2002; 287:2542–2551.
5.
NarayanKMV, BoyleJP, GeissLS, SaaddineJB, ThompsonTJ. Impact of recent increase in incidence on future diabetes burden: U.S., 2005–2050. Diabetes Care, 2006; 29:2114–2116.
6.
Diabetes 2005 Fact Sheet. www.cdc.gov/diabetes. 2008 April 9.
7.
O'BrienT, DenhamSA. Diabetes care and education in rural regions. Diabetes Educ, 2008; 34:334–347.
8.
OhkuboY, KishikawaH, ArakiEet al.Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 1995; 28:103–117.
9.
GaedeP, VedelP, LarsenN, JensenGVH, ParvingH-H, PedersenO. Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2003; 348:383–393.
10.
Group TDCaCTR. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. N Engl J Med, 1993; 329:977–986.
11.
PogachL, EngelgauM, AronD. Measuring progress toward achieving hemoglobin A1c goals in diabetes care: Pass/fail or partial credit. JAMA, 2007; 297:520–523.
12.
SaydahSH, FradkinJ, CowieCC. Poor control of risk factors for vascular disease among adults with previously diagnosed diabetes. JAMA, 2004; 291:335–342.
13.
CoonP, ZulkowskiK. Adherence to American Diabetes Association Standards of Care by rural health care providers. Diabetes Care, 2002; 25:2224–2229.
14.
ShojaniaKG, RanjiSR, McDonaldKMet al.Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: A meta-regression analysis. JAMA, 2006; 296:427–440.
15.
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2009. Diabetes Care, 2009; 32,Suppl 1:S13–S61.
16.
Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care, 2002; 25:213–229.
17.
AssociationAD. Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care, 2003; 26,Suppl. 1:S33–S50.
18.
GomezEJ, HernandoME, GarciaAet al.Telemedicine as a tool for intensive management of diabetes: The DIABTel experience. Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 2002; 69:163–177.
19.
GrigsbyWJ. Telehealth: an assessment of growth and distribution. J Rural Health, 2002; 18:348–358.
20.
SheaS, WeinstockRS, TeresiJAet al.A randomized trial comparing telemedicine case management with usual care in older, ethnically diverse, medically underserved patients with diabetes mellitus: 5 year results of the IDEATel study. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 2009; 16:446–456.
21.
BalamuruganA, Hall-BarrowJ, BlevinsMAet al.A pilot study of diabetes education via telemedicine in a rural underserved community—opportunities and challenges: a continuous quality improvement process. Diabetes Educ, 2009; 35:147–154.
22.
DavisRM, HitchAD, SalaamMM, HermanWH, Zimmer-GallerIE, Mayer-DavisEJ. 2010. TeleHealth improves diabetes self-management in an underserved community: Diabetes TELECARE. Diabetes Care, 33:1712–1717.
23.
SheaS. The Informatics for Diabetes and Education Telemedicine (IDEATel) project. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc, 2007; 118:289–304.
24.
MillerW, RollnickS. Motivational Interviewing. New York: The Guilford Press, 2002.
25.
KavookjianJ, BergerBA, GrimleyDM, VillaumeWA, AndersonHM, BarkerKN. Patient decision making: Strategies for diabetes diet adherence intervention. Res Social Adm Pharm, 2005; 1:389–407.
26.
FitzgeraldJT, FunnellMM, HessGEet al.The reliability and validity of a brief diabetes knowledge test. Diabetes Care, 1998; 21:706–710.
27.
Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center. Diabetes History 2.0, University of Michigan, 1998. http://www.med.umich.edu/mdrtc/profs/survey.htmlretrievedJune30, 2004.
28.
AhringKK, AhringJP, JoyceC, FaridNR. Telephone modem access improves diabetes control in those with insulin-requiring diabetes. Diabetes Care, 1992; 15:971–975.
29.
ChaseHP, PearsonJA, WightmanC, RobertsMD, OderbergAD, GargSK. Modem transmission of glucose values reduces the costs and need for clinic visits. Diabetes Care, 2003; 26:1475–1479.
30.
PareG, MoqademK, PineauG, St-HilaireC. Clinical effects of home telemonitoring in the context of diabetes, asthma, heart failure and hypertension: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res, 2010; 12:e21.
31.
PerlemuterL, YomtovB. Modem transmission of glucose values reduces the costs of and need for clinic visits: Response to Chase et al. Diabetes Care, 2003; 26:2969author reply 2969–2970.
