Phone call as an intervention for improving walking practice in type 2 diabetes: influence of personality profile in this response

INTRODUCTION: Although there is evidence supporting the essential role of physical activity in the management of type 2 diabetic patients, only the physician counseling has shown lesser efficacy in promoting behavior changes, which are so necessary for the clinical control of these patients. In this sense, other possible factors that may influence these responses have been investigated, such as depressive symptoms and socioecononomic level. However, until the present moment the role of these factors such as personality profile in the increment of physical activity has not been clearly established in the literature. OBJECTIVES: to assay the influence of phone call support as an incentive to promote walking in type 2 diabetic patients during six weeks. We also determined the role of personality profile, clinical, laboratorial and demographic characteristics, the referred level of physical activity, the socioeconomic classification, the quality of life, the presence of depressive symptoms and comorbidities in this response. CASUISTIC AND METHODS: it is a prospective, “quasi-experimental”, randomized, controlled and without masking study. We enrolled type 2 diabetic patients, with more than 18 years old, accompanied in the Internal Medicine Ambulatory (ACMG-HC-FMUSP), for more than a year, without any type of physical limitation for walking, with a phone number for contact and the ones that signed the Written Consent Form. The independent variables studied were: clinical, laboratorial and demographic characteristics, personality profile (Comrey Scale), comorbidities (Charlson Scale), socioeconomic classification (CCEB instrument), quality of life (FACIT-sp12 questionnaire), depressive symptoms (PRIME-MD questionnaire), the referred level of physical activity (IPAQ questionnaire) and the behavior stage for practicing physical activity (Prochaska questionnaire). The patients were then randomized into two groups. The intervention group received phone calls (one every other ten days) in order to reinforce the strategies for doing physical activity. The control group patients received only one phone call at the first week. The outcome evaluated was the increment of physical activity measured by the difference between the number of steps obtained in the sixth and in the first week of the study. The association among the independent variables and the increment of physical activity was analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. We obtained the odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals and the statistical significance levels. In relation to the intervention, we determined the absolute and relative risks, the efficacy and the necessary number to treat (NNT). RESULTS: We randomized 54 patients and 48 of these patients completed the study: 29 participated of the control group and 19 were included in the intervention one. The fasting glycemia (p=0.003) and the number of comorbidities (p=0.04) were lower in the intervention group in comparison to the control group. There were no significant differences between the other analyzed variables. The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the independent variables associated with the outcome were the age (>65 years: OR: 11.4; CI 95%: 1,05-123,5; p=0.04) and the phone call support (OR:8,9; CI 95%: 2,01-39,3; p=0,004) The other variables were not included in the final model. Using the intention to treat analysis the phone call support showed an efficacy of 90%. The absolute risk reduction was 75% and it was necessary to give a phone call support for three patients in order to obtain an increment in the number of the steps between the sixth and the first week of the study (NNT=2.7). CONCLUSIONS: the phone call support was an efficient intervention for promoting walking during six weeks in type 2 diabetic patients, mainly in the ones older than 65 years.