Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The Mobile Insulin Titration Intervention (MITI) program helps patients with type 2 diabetes find their correct basal insulin dose without in-person care. Requiring only basic cell phone technology (text messages and phone calls), MITI is highly accessible to patients receiving care in safety-net settings. MITI was shown in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to be efficacious at a New York City (NYC) safety-net clinic where patients often have challenges coming for in-person care. In 2016, MITI was implemented as usual care at Bellevue Hospital (the site of the original RCT) and at Gouverneur Health (a second NYC safety-net clinic) under 2 different staffing models. OBJECTIVE:This implementation study examined MITI's transition into real-world settings. To understand MITI's flexibility, generalizability, and acceptability among patients and providers, we evaluated whether MITI continued to produce positive outcomes in expanded underserved populations, outside of an RCT setting. METHODS:Patients enrolled in MITI received weekday text messages asking for their fasting blood glucose (FBG) values and a weekly titration call. The goal was for patients to reach their optimal insulin dose (OID), defined either as the dose of once-daily basal insulin required to achieve either an FBG of 80-130 mg/dL (4.4-7.2 mmol/L) or as the reaching of the maximum dose of 50 units. After 12 weeks, if OID was not reached, the patients were asked to return to the clinic for in-person care and titration. MITI program outcomes, clinical outcomes, process outcomes, and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS:levels fell from 11.4% (101 mmol/mol) to 10.0% (86 mmol/mol), P<.001. Process outcomes show that 90.1% of MITI's text message prompts received a response, nurses connected with patients 81.9% of weeks to provide titration instructions, and 85% of attending physicians made at least one referral to the MITI program. Satisfaction surveys showed that most patients felt comfortable sharing information over text and felt the texts reminded them to take their insulin, check their sugar, and make healthy food choices. CONCLUSIONS:This implementation study showed MITI to have continued success after transitioning from an RCT program into real-world settings. MITI showed itself to be flexible and generalizable as it easily fits into a second site staffed by general medical clinic-registered nurses and remained acceptable to patients and staff who had high levels of engagement with the program.

BACKGROUND: Decision Aids (DAs) effectively translate medical evidence for patients but are not routinely used in clinical practice. Little is known about how DAs are used during patient-clinician encounters. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the content and communicative function of high-quality DAs during diagnostic clinic visits for prostate cancer. PARTICIPANTS: 252 men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had received a DA, 45 treating physicians at 4 US Veterans Administration urology clinics. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of transcribed audio recordings was used to inductively develop categories capturing content and function of all direct references to DAs (booklet talk). The presence or absence of any booklet talk per transcript was also calculated. RESULTS: Booklet talk occurred in 55% of transcripts. Content focused on surgical procedures (36%); treatment choice (22%); and clarifying risk classification (17%). The most common function of booklet talk was patient corroboration of physicians' explanations (42%), followed by either physician or patient acknowledgement that the patient had the booklet. Codes reflected the absence of DA use for shared decision-making. In regression analysis, predictors of booklet talk were fewer years of patient education (P = .027) and more time in the encounter (P = .027). Patient race, DA type, time reading the DA, physician informing quality and physician age did not predict booklet talk. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that good decision aids, systematically provided to patients, appeared to function not to open up deliberations about how to balance benefits and harms of competing treatments, but rather to allow patients to ask narrow technical questions about recommended treatments.