Changes in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures With a Technology-Supported Behavioral Lifestyle Intervention Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the United States, more than one-third of the adult population is obese, and approximately 25.2% of those aged ≥65 years have type 2 diabetes (T2D), which is the seventh leading cause of death. It is important to measure patient-reported outcomes and monitor progress or challenges over time when managing T2D to understand patients' perception of health and quantify the impact of disease processes or intervention effects. The evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is especially important among patients with multiple chronic conditions in which clinical measures do not provide a complete picture of health. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the feasibility of collecting Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, and preliminarily evaluated changes in PROMIS scores and compared the scores with standard scores of the general US population. The parent study is a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial testing three different modes (mobile health [mHealth], paper diary, and control) of self-monitoring in a behavioral lifestyle intervention among overweight or obese patients with T2D. METHODS: Patients with comorbid overweight or obesity and a diagnosis of T2D for at least 6 months were recruited from a diabetes education program. Participants were randomized to the following three groups: mHealth, paper diary, and control (standard of care) groups. Paper diary and mHealth experimental groups received additional behavioral lifestyle intervention education sessions, as well as tools to self-monitor weight, physical activity, diet, and blood glucose. All participants completed PROMIS-57 and PROMIS-Global Health (GH) version 1.0 questionnaires during visits at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The PROMIS-57 includes the following seven domains: anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, physical function, satisfaction with participation in social roles, and sleep disturbance. The PROMIS-GH is composed of the following two domains: global mental health and global physical health. RESULTS: . All patients completed the PROMIS-57 and PROMIS-GH questionnaires, and we compared the mean scores of the three groups to investigate potential differences. No relevant differences were noted across the groups. However, positive trends were noted in both intervention (mHealth and paper diary) groups in the middle (month 3) and end (month 6) of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study provides evidence for the feasibility of using PROMIS questionnaires to record important components of T2D-related symptoms among overweight or obese individuals. The results from our study support the use of PROMIS questionnaires to provide clinicians and researchers with a benchmark for assessing the overall need for symptom management and determining the success or challenges of an intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02858648; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02858648.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".