Comparison of the efficacy of an education program for people with diabetes and insulin pump treatment (INPUT) in a randomized controlled trial setting and the effectiveness in a routine care setting: Results of a comparative effectiveness study

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of an education program for people with diabetes and insulin pump treatment (INPUT) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to the effectiveness in an implementation trial (IT).Methods135 people with diabetes on insulin pump treatment (CSII) underwent structured education with INPUT under RCT-conditions, 191 people with diabetes on CSII underwent structured education with INPUT under IT-conditions. Baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes at the 6-month follow-up were compared.ResultsAt baseline, RCT-participants were younger (42.7 ± 14.2 vs. 47.2 ± 14.1 years, p = 0.005), had higher HbA1c-values (8.3 ± 0.8% vs. 7.8 ± 1.2%, p = 0.001) and had more diabetes-related distress (27.8 ± 16.4 vs 22.4 ± 14.4, p = 0.002). At follow-up, INPUT results were comparable under the RCT and IT settings. After adjustment for baseline HbA1c, reduction of HbA1c in the IT was significantly greater than in the RCT (Δ0.17%; 95% CI 0.023–0.319%, p = 0.024). Participants with higher HbA1c-levels, more diabetes-related distress and more hypoglycemia problems were most likely to benefit from INPUT regardless of the trial setting.ConclusionsEfficacy of the INPUT program for people with CSII was demonstrated under RCT- and routine care conditions.Practice implicationsEducation with the INPUT program is effective not only under standardized RCT conditions but also under conditions of routine care.