Project RedCar: Cardiovascular Disease Risk Communication for People With Type 2 Diabetes Combining the Power of Electronic Health Records and Computer-Based Multimedia Technology

Abstract

Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality in people with type 2 diabetes, CVD risk factors are undertreated in this population. The communication of individualized CVD risk to patients before clinical encounters may facilitate the discussion of CVD risk between patients and health care providers and lead to more timely therapeutic intensification. This article presents a CVD risk communication intervention designed for an urban primary care population, utilizing an electronic health record system. Preliminary analyses indicate that the intervention increases the likelihood of patients discussing CVD risk with their physicians and makes it easier for them to participate in these discussions.

Perceptions of risks for diabetes‐related complications in Type 2 diabetes populations: a systematic review

“…, in particular, recommend that preliminary data be systematically collected, prior to any communication effort. New interventions based on such strategies are considered to be very promising in the risk communication field . We believe that they will help to correct erroneous risk perceptions, and, in turn, have a greater impact on self‐care behaviours.…”

Using Patient Portals to Improve Patient Outcomes: Systematic Review (Preprint)

“…Half of the studies included in this systematic review were of high quality [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. Of the 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 9 were of medium quality [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32], and 1 was of high quality [33]. Common methodological issues observed in the RCTs had to do with a lack of concealment of allocation to treatment groups, such as nonblinding of participants to treatment assignment [28], nonblinding of those delivering treatment, [24,30,31] or nonblinding of outcome assessors to treatment [24][25][26][27][29][30][31].…”

“…Of the 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 9 were of medium quality [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32], and 1 was of high quality [33]. Common methodological issues observed in the RCTs had to do with a lack of concealment of allocation to treatment groups, such as nonblinding of participants to treatment assignment [28], nonblinding of those delivering treatment, [24,30,31] or nonblinding of outcome assessors to treatment [24][25][26][27][29][30][31]. Among the quasi-experimental studies, 6 out of 7 [14,16,18,19,21,22] were of high quality, and 1 was of low quality [34].…”

“…Of the 24 included studies, 10 [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] were RCTs, 7 [14,16,18,19,21,34] were quasi-experimental studies, 1 [13] was a mixed method study using survey and focus groups, 1 [20] was a pre-post cohort study, and the remaining 5 [15,17,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] were retrospective cohort studies. Most studies [13,[15][16][17][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][31][...…”

“…A total of 2 studies [20,34] involved multiple health systems, and all other studies (n=22) were conducted within a single health system. Targeted health conditions included the following: hypertension [17,19,32], depression [22,36], type 2 diabetes [13,16,24,26,27,29,33], HIV [20], osteoporosis or osteopenia [31], coronary artery disease [21], addiction [22], and obesity [30]. Patient outcomes examined included the following: readmission [15], patient knowledge of health information [18,22,25,29,31,33], blood pressure (BP) control [17,19,21,32,33], symptoms of depression [33,36], medication refill adherence [20], blood glucose management [13,21,23,24,26,32,33], weight control [21,27,30,32], preventive health service utilization (eg, cervical, colorectal, and breast cancer screening)…”