Study Finds That Adding Telemonitoring To Support Diabetes Management Did Not Change Patient Outcomes

Adding telemonitoring to routine diabetes care did not significantly change patient outcomes, according to a new AHRQ-funded study. The study, “Effect of Home Telemonitoring on Glycemic and Blood Pressure Control in Primary Care Clinic Patients with Diabetes,” appeared online January 3 in Telemedicine and e-Health. Researchers compared 53 people who received routine care with 55 people who got routine care plus telemonitoring. After 12 weeks of care, hemoglobin A1c and blood pressure levels were not significantly different between the two groups. The study findings and abstract suggest that the addition of technology alone is unlikely to lead to improved outcomes, and that telemonitoring should be limited to patients whose care plans change significantly. The study said more research is needed to determine how primary care practices can effectively use telemonitoring to support patients’ abilities to manage diabetes.

2014 Jan 3. [Epub ahead of print]

Effect of Home Telemonitoring on Glycemic and Blood Pressure Control in Primary Care Clinic Patients with Diabetes.

Wakefield BJ, Koopman RJ, Keplinger LE, Bomar M, Bernt B, Johanning JL, Kruse RL, Davis JW, Wakefield DS, Mehr DR.

Author information

Abstract

Abstract Objective: Patient self-management support may be augmented by using home-based technologies that generate data points that providers can potentially use to make more timely changes in the patients' care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of short-term targeted use of remote data transmission on treatment outcomes in patients with diabetes who had either out-of-range hemoglobin A1c (A1c) and/or blood pressure (BP) measurements. Materials and Methods: A single-center randomized controlled clinical trial design compared in-home monitoring (n=55) and usual care (n=53) in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension being treated in primary care clinics. Primary outcomes were A1c and systolic BP after a 12-week intervention. Results: There were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups on either A1c or systolic BP following the intervention. Conclusions: The addition of technology alone is unlikely to lead to improvements in outcomes. Practices need to be selective in their use of telemonitoring with patients, limiting it to patients who have motivation or a significant change in care, such as starting insulin. Attention to the need for effective and responsive clinic processes to optimize the use of the additional data is also important when implementing these types of technology.