Frequency of Monitoring Diabetes in Primary Care: What Do Well-Controlled Patients Prefer?

Preferences of people with diabetes for diabetes care in Germany: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to elicit health care preferences of people with diabetes and identify classes of people with different preferences.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted among people with diabetes in Germany comprising attributes of role division in daily diabetes care planning, type of lifestyle education, support for correct medication intake, consultation frequency, emotional support, and time spent on self-management. A conditional logit model and a latent class model were used to elicit preferences toward diabetes care and analyze preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 76 people with diabetes, recruited in two specialized diabetes care centers in Germany (mean age 51.9 years, 37.3% women, 49.1% type 2 diabetes mellitus, 50.9% type 1 diabetes mellitus), completed the discrete choice experiment. The most important attributes were consultation frequency, division in daily diabetes care planning, and correct medication intake. The latent class model detected preference heterogeneity by identifying two latent classes which differ mainly with respect to lifestyle education and medication intake.

CONCLUSION

While the majority of people with diabetes showed preferences in line with current health care provision in Germany, a relevant subgroup wished to strengthen lifestyle education and medication intake support with an aid or website.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 3-monthly versus 6-monthly monitoring of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients: a pragmatic randomised controlled patient-preference equivalence trial in primary care (EFFIMODI study)

AIM

To investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 6-monthly monitoring compared with 3-monthly monitoring of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients in primary care.

METHODS

A pragmatic randomised controlled patient-preference equivalence trial was performed. From April 2009 to August 2010, 2215 patients from 233 general practitioners across the Netherlands were included. Patients were eligible if between 40- and 80-years-old, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for more than a year, treated by their general practitioner, not on insulin treatment and well-controlled during the last year (HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤ 145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤ 5.2 mmol/l). Patients without a strong preference for their monitoring frequency were randomised to 3-monthly or 6-monthly monitoring. Follow-up was 18 months. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients remaining under: HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤ 145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤ 5.2 mmol/l. Equivalence was assumed if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was between -5 and 5%. Cost-effectiveness was determined using a cost-minimisation analysis.

RESULTS

In the 3-monthly group 69.5% remained under good cardiometabolic control, versus 69.8% in the 6-monthly group (difference: 0.3%; 95%CI: -6.2-6.7%). All secondary outcomes were equivalent for 3-monthly and 6-monthly monitoring, except the systolic blood pressure target, physical activity and antihypertensive drug use. Six-monthly monitoring was €387 (£333) cheaper per patient compared to 3-monthly monitoring during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with good cardiometabolic control and without preference for their monitoring frequency can visit the primary care physician less often. The cost-savings can be considerable.

Six-monthly diabetes monitoring of well-controlled patients: experiences of primary care providers

AIMS

To examine experiences of primary care providers with six-monthly diabetes monitoring of well-controlled patients.

METHODS

This study was part of the EFFIMODI study, examining whether six-monthly monitoring of well-controlled (HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤5.2 mmol/l) type 2 diabetes patients results in equivalent cardiometabolic control compared to three-monthly monitoring. Primary care providers completed a questionnaire about their experiences with six-monthly diabetes monitoring, whether they want to continue six-monthly monitoring and for which type of patients six-monthly monitoring is sufficient.

RESULTS

Of 163 questionnaires, 157 (96.3%) were completed and returned. Only 14 (8.9%) primary care providers were negative about the six-monthly monitoring and 102 (65.0%) would like to continue six-monthly monitoring. Primary care providers disagreed about patients' ability to determine their own monitoring frequency and whether six-monthly monitoring was suitable for all well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients. Practical concerns emerged such as the inability to declare healthcare costs and the unsuitability of electronic health record systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost two out of three primary care providers would like to continue six-monthly monitoring of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients. However, some diabetes care providers should be convinced and some practical concerns should be solved.