Physician-patient communication at prescription of an additional oral drug for type 2 diabetes and its links to patient outcomes - New findings from the global IntroDia® study

Impact of Negative or Stigmatizing Messages on Diabetes Outcomes: An Integrative Review

PURPOSE

The purpose was to determine if negative or stigmatizing language and messaging have an impact on diabetes distress, outcomes, or care behaviors in people with diabetes. Since 2012, when the first language position statement was published, the way health care professionals talk to people with diabetes has been an ongoing topic of discussion. However, there have been no recent literature reviews evaluating the impact of problem language on outcomes among people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

An integrative review was conducted using 4 electronic databases: CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Medline (Ovid). Studies reporting on diabetes, language, stigma, diabetes distress, glycemic outcomes, and self-care behaviors were included.

RESULTS

The review included 9 studies, all of which were of high quality. The impact of negative or stigmatizing language on self-care behaviors was the most commonly addressed outcome. Whereas some studies revealed no change, others reported a decrease in self-care behaviors by people with diabetes who had negative perceptions of provider messages. Actual or perceived use of negative or stigmatizing language is linked to higher A1C. Four studies reported an association between messages and diabetes distress.

CONCLUSIONS

Negative/stigmatizing language has both an immediate and long-term effect on people with diabetes. The inconsistent approaches to studying language in diabetes makes it challenging to compare outcomes and identify themes. Future research is needed to identify effective interventions to change the messages in diabetes.

Individualized care for older adults with diabetes and its relationship with communication, psychosocial self-efficacy, resources and support for self-management and socio-demographics

AIM

To examine the relationship between patient-provider communication, psychosocial patient self-efficacy, resources and support for self-management and socio-demographics within individualized care of older adults with diabetes.

DESIGN

A quantitative study with a cross-sectional survey design.

METHODS

Data were collected from September 2019 to January 2021 using: Individualized Care Scale, The Communication Assessment Tool, The Diabetes Empowerment Scale and The Resources and Support for Self-Management Scale. Patients with either Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus that were 65 years old and over (N = 145) participated in the study.

RESULTS

The most positive aspects of patient-provider communication were respect and creating a comfortable environment for the patient. A significant relationship was observed between patients' perceptions and support of individualized care and diabetes-related measures. Effective communication was the main factor associated with support for individualizing care, and together with education level, empowerment and access to resources, explained 23% of the variance.

Missed and Mistimed Insulin Doses in People with Diabetes: A Systematic Literature Review

Background: Development of coordinated management approaches is important to facilitate self-care in people with diabetes (PwD). Gaining a better understanding of suboptimal insulin use is key in this endeavor. This review aimed, for the first time, to systematically identify and narratively summarize real-world evidence on the extent of suboptimal insulin use (missed and mistimed insulin) in PwD. Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews identified studies reporting on missed and mistimed insulin dosing. Results: From 3305 studies, 37 publications reporting on 30 unique studies that involved 58,617 PwD were included. Studies were conducted across 12 different countries and most employed cross-sectional surveys. Observations regarding missed and mistimed insulin doses were reported in 25 and 10 studies, respectively. PwD reported missing insulin doses, but rates varied due to differences in reporting methods, participant populations, and insulin regimens. The association between missed dosing and glycemic control was evaluated in ten studies in which the authors reported lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in PwD who did not omit insulin. The proportion of PwD reporting mistiming of insulin was in the range of 20-45%, depending on the study; this was associated with higher rates of hypoglycemia and higher HbA1c as reported by study authors. Reasons for suboptimal insulin use were multifactorial, occurring due to disrupted daily routines, social situations, and hypoglycemia avoidance. Conclusions: This review suggests that suboptimal insulin use is widespread and that PwD using insulin may still be struggling with disease management. There is an unmet need for better integrated support in managing the complexities of insulin therapy and for the development of systems (e.g. digital solutions) that empower people to take control of insulin-treated diabetes.

Impact of Advanced Diabetes Centers on the healthcare experience of patients with type 2 diabetes using the IEXPAC tool

AIMS

To determine the experience with healthcare among patients with type 2 diabetes according to the assistance model provided in their primary care centers, and to determine factors related with their experience.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study performed in patients with type 2 diabetes with cardiovascular or renal complications. The patients were divided in two groups according to whether they had been attended in Advanced Diabetes centers (ADC) or the traditional assistance centers. Patient's healthcare experience was assessed with the "Instrument for Evaluation of the Experience of Chronic Patients" (IEXPAC) questionnaire, with possible scores ranging from 0 (worst experience) to 10 (best experience).

RESULTS

A total of 451 patients (215 from ADC and 236 from traditional assistance centers) were included. The mean overall IEXPAC scores were 5.9 ± 1.7 (ADC) and 6.0 ± 1.9 (traditional assistance centers; p = 0.82). In the multivariant analyses, in ADC, the regular follow-up by the same physician (p = 0.01) and follow-up by a nurse (p = 0.01), were associated with a better patient experience, whereas receiving a higher number of medications with a worse patient experience (p = 0.04). In the traditional assistance centers, only the regular follow-up by the same physician was associated with a better experience (p = 0.02). Patients from ADC centers reported a higher score in the quality of life scale (69.1 ± 16.5 vs 64.6 ± 17.5; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the healthcare experience of type 2 diabetic patients with their sanitary assistance can be improved. Patients from ADC centers report a higher score in the quality of life scale.

UK Dietitians' views on communication skills for behaviour change: A 10 year follow-up survey

BACKGROUND

In 2007, a survey of UK dietitians identified that dietitians were positive about the use of Communication Skills for Behaviour Change (CSBC) in practice, although barriers to the implementation of skills were acknowledged. This follow-up survey aimed to explore current perceptions of CSBC and compare them with the previous survey.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey of British Dietetic Association (BDA) members' views of CSBC was undertaken. The results for full members are presented. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were subject to either content, or inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A response rate of 9.4% (n = 729) was achieved. Respondents were predominately female (n = 684; 95.1%) and worked in the National Health Service (n = 634; 87.4%). They were positive about the importance of CSBC in practice (n = 714; 99.5%). Pre-registration training had been completed by 346 respondents (48.7%). Post-registration training had been undertaken by 520 (74.7%) respondents and 514 of these (99.6%) had implemented training into practice, with few barriers identified. Perception of ability to use skills had increased, with 513 (83.6%) respondents rating their skills as excellent/very good compared to 62% previously. The majority (n = 594; 93.7%) reported that post-registration training was necessary, with the need for skills to be regularly reviewed (n = 456; 74.5%), and 235 (51.9%) respondents suggested this be mandatory. By contrast, some suggested that a skill review was not a priority, and would be difficult to administer and stressful.

CONCLUSIONS

Perception of the importance of CSBC remains high. Although the perceived ability to apply CSBC has increased, the perceived need for post-registration training is high, with respondents' favouring mandatory training.

Variation in the achievement of HbA1c , blood pressure and LDL cholesterol targets in type 2 diabetes in general practice and characteristics associated with risk factor control

AIMS

To identify population, general practitioner, and practice characteristics associated with the achievement of HbA_1c , blood pressure and LDL cholesterol targets, and to describe variation in the achievement of risk factor control.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 9342 people with type 2 diabetes, 281 general practitioners and 77 general practices in Norway. Missing values (7.4%) were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. We used three-level logistic regression with the achievement of HbA_1c , blood pressure and LDL cholesterol targets as dependent variables, and factors related to population, general practitioners, and practices as independent variables.

RESULTS

Treatment targets were achieved for HbA_1c in 64%, blood pressure in 50%, and LDL cholesterol in 52% of people with type 2 diabetes, and 17% met all three targets. There was substantial heterogeneity in target achievement among general practitioners and among practices; the estimated proportion of a GPs diabetes population at target was 55-73% (10-90 percentiles) for HbA_1c , 36-63% for blood pressure, and 47-57% for LDL cholesterol targets. The models explained 11%, 5% and 14%, respectively, of the total variation in the achievement of HbA_1c , blood pressure and LDL cholesterol targets. Use among general practitioners of a structured diabetes form was associated with 23% higher odds of achieving the HbA_1c target (odds ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.47) and 17% higher odds of achieving the LDL cholesterol target (odds ratio 1.17, 95% CI 1.01-1.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical diabetes management is difficult, and few people meet all three risk factor control targets. The proportion of people reaching target varied among general practitioners and practices. Several population, general practitioner and practice characteristics only explained a small part of the total variation. The use of a structured diabetes form is recommended.

Twenty-five years of diabetes distress research

The term 'diabetes distress' first entered the psychosocial research vernacular in 1995, and refers to 'the negative emotional or affective experience resulting from the challenge of living with the demands of diabetes'. At first the proponents of the concept were hesitant in advocating that diabetes distress was a major barrier to individuals' self-care and management of diabetes. Since then, a burgeoning body of evidence, now including several systematic reviews of intervention studies, suggests that diabetes distress, in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, across ages and in all countries and cultures where it has been studied, is common and can be a barrier to optimal emotional well-being, self-care and management of diabetes. As a consequence, monitoring diabetes distress as part of routine clinical care is part of many national guidelines. The present narrative review summarizes this research and related literature, to postulate the aetiology of diabetes distress, and thus how it may be prevented. The current evidence base for the management of diabetes distress is summarized, and the next steps in the prevention and management of diabetes distress identified.