An Electronic Medication Module to Improve Health Literacy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

• Published in: JMIR formative research 2020-04, Vol.4 (4), p.e13746-e13746
• Main Authors: Seidling, Hanna Marita, Mahler, Cornelia, Strauß, Beate, Weis, Aline, Stützle, Marion, Krisam, Johannes, Szecsenyi, Joachim, Haefeli, Walter Emil
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Diabetes; Documentation; Drug administration; Drug interactions; Electronic health records; Health care; Health education; Health literacy; Intervention; Original Paper; Patients; Primary care; Questionnaires; Web portals
• ISSN: 2561-326X; 2561-326X
• DOI: 10.2196/13746

In primary care, patients play a crucial role in managing care processes and handling drug treatment. A decisive factor for success is their health literacy, and several interventions have been introduced to support patients in fulfilling their responsibility. The aim of this study is to assess the influence of such an intervention (ie, a medication module) within a patient-led electronic health record on patients' health literacy. We conducted a randomized controlled study among community-dwelling patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients were recruited from primary care practices. After randomization, patients either had access to an internet-based medication module allowing them to store their medication information, look up drug information, and print a medication schedule (intervention group), or they received an information brochure on the importance of medication schedules (control group). After 4-8 weeks, all patients were invited to attend a structured medication review (ie, follow-up visit). Data were collected via questionnaires before the start of the intervention and during the follow-up visit. The main outcome measure was the mean difference in health literacy between baseline and follow-up assessments of patients in the control and intervention groups. Of 116 recruited patients, 107 (92.2%) completed the follow-up assessment and were eligible for intention-to-treat analyses. Only 73 patients, of which 29 were in the intervention group, followed the study protocol and were eligible for per-protocol analysis. No differences in overall health literacy were observed in either the intention-to-treat or in the per-protocol cohorts. Reasons for a null effect might be that the cohort was not particularly enriched with participants with low health literacy, thus precluding measurable improvement (ie, ceiling effect). Moreover, the success of implementation was considered poor because both the correct application of the study procedure (ie, randomization according to the protocol and dropout of 29 patients) and the actual interaction with the medication module was modest (ie, dropout of 9 patients). The conduct of this randomized controlled study was challenging, leaving it open whether inadequate implementation, too short of a duration, or insufficient efficacy of the intervention, as such, contributed to the null effect of this study. This clearly outlines the value of piloting complex interventions and the accompanying process evaluations.