Opinions of patients with type 2 diabetes about responsibility, setting targets and willingness to take medication. A cross-sectional survey

Willingness of people with type 2 diabetes to engage in healthy eating, physical activity and medication taking

AIM

To assess the willingness of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) to engage in healthy eating, physical activity and medication taking, and explore associated patient factors.

METHODS

Online survey among recently diagnosed T2D patients recruited in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (UK). Patient factors included general factors and behaviour-specific beliefs. Logistic regression analyses and explorative comparisons were conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, 48% of 67 patients were willing to engage in all three management options, whereas 6% were not willing to follow any of them. 73% were willing to manage T2D with healthy eating, 73% with physical activity, and 72% with medication. Country of recruitment was significantly associated with willingness for healthy eating, with higher willingness among Dutch participants. Beliefs surrounding capability, opportunity, and motivation were significantly associated with willingness to engage in physical activity and medication taking. Many beliefs were similar regardless of willingness but those willing to engage in physical activity perceived less barriers and those willing to take medication had more positive and less negative outcome beliefs than those not willing.

CONCLUSIONS

Willingness to engage in all management options was limited among recently diagnosed patients, and partly associated with behaviour-specific patient beliefs.

Patients' sense of responsibility to healthcare providers and its predictors: A national cross-sectional survey in China

Objectives

To evaluate patients’ sense of responsibility to healthcare providers and to determine its predictors using on a national sample in China.

Methods

We conducted a national cross-sectional survey in China with a stratified cluster sample of patients treated in 77 hospitals between July 2014 and April 2015. Patients’ sense of responsibility to healthcare providers was measured with four questions assessing patients’ perceptions regarding their responsibilities to respect doctors, respect nurses, coordinate with health professionals, and comply with hospital rules. Predictors included patient sociodemographic characteristics and their past hospitalization experience.

Results

Small proportions of respondents reported that they perceived having no responsibility to respect doctors (8.9%), respect nurses (7.9%), comply with hospital rules (6.7%), or coordinate with health professionals (6.3%). Multivariate regression analyses showed that the strongest predictor of patients’ sense of responsibility to healthcare providers was patinets’ trust in health professionals, followed by patients’ education level. Familiarity with healthcare professionals and past hospitalization frequency were inversely associated with patients’ sense of responsibility to healthcare providers.

Conclusions

Although only a small proportion of the patients reported feeling no or low sense of responsibility to healthcare providers, the lack of respect and collaboration from these patients can negatively affect patient-provider relationships. Healthcare administrators need to communicate clearly with the patients and the public about the role of patients and the limitations of medicine in order to instill a sense of patients’ responsibility.

Implementation of a Structured Diabetes Consultation Model to Facilitate a Person-Centered Approach: Results From a Nationwide Dutch Study

OBJECTIVE

We assessed both from a patient and provider perspective the usefulness and added value of a consultation model that facilitates person-centered diabetes care.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The model consists of 1) inventory of disease and patient-related factors; 2) setting personal goals; 3) choosing treatment; and 4) determination of required care. It was implemented in 47 general practices and 6 hospital outpatient clinics. Providers were trained, and patients were recommended to prepare their visit. All filled out a questionnaire after every consultation. Differences between primary and secondary care practices and between physician-led and nurse-led consultations were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy-four physicians and thirty-one nurses participated, reporting on 1,366 consultations with type 2 diabetes patients. According to providers, the model was applicable in 72.4% (nurses 79.3% vs. physicians 68.5%, P < 0.001). Physicians more often had a consultation time <25 min (80.4% vs. 56.9%, P < 0.001). According to providers, two of three patients spoke more than half of the consultation time (outpatient clinics 75.2% vs. general practices 66.6%, P = 0.002; nurses 73.2% vs. physicians 64.4%, P = 0.001). Providers stated that person-related factors often determined treatment goals. Almost all patients (94.4%) reported that they made shared decisions; they felt more involved than before (with physicians 45.1% vs. with nurses 33.6%, P < 0.001) and rated the consultation 8.6 of 10. After physician-led consultations, 52.5% reported that the consultation was better than before (nurse visit 33.7%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A consultation model to facilitate person-centered care seems well applicable and results in more patient involvement, including shared decision making, and is appreciated by a substantial number of patients.

A narrative systematic review of factors affecting diabetes prevention in primary care settings

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes is impacting millions of people globally; however, many future cases can be prevented through lifestyle changes and interventions. Primary care is an important setting for diabetes prevention, for at-risk populations, because it is a patient's primary point of contact with the health care system and professionals can provide lifestyle counselling and support, as well as monitoring health outcomes. These are all essential elements for diabetes prevention for at-risk adults.

AIM

To understand the factors related to the delivery and uptake of type 2 diabetes prevention interventions within primary care in higher income countries.

METHODS

For this narrative systematic review, we combined qualitative and quantitative studies of diabetes prevention within a primary care setting for patients at-risk of developing the condition. We used an iterative approach for evidence collection, which included using several databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Pysch info, BNI, SSCI, CINAHL, ASSIA), where we combined diabetes terms with primary care terms. Narrative and thematic synthesis were utilised to identify the prominent themes emerging from the data.

RESULTS

A database of 6646 records was screened by the research team, and 18 papers were included. Three major themes were identified in this review. The first theme of context and setting of diabetes progression includes the risk and progression of diabetes, primary care as a setting, and where the responsibility for change is thought to lie. This review also found mixed views on the value of preventative services within primary care. The second theme focused on the various patient factors associated with diabetes prevention such as a patient's motivation to modify their current lifestyle, perceptions and knowledge (or lack thereof) of the impacts of diabetes, lack of follow-up in healthcare settings, and trust in healthcare professionals. The third theme was centred on professional factors impacting on diabetes prevention which included workload, time constraints, resources, self-efficacy and knowledge as well as professionals' perception of patient motivations towards change.

CONCLUSION

This review explored the factors influencing diabetes prevention in primary care, and identified the context of prevention, as well as patient and professional factors related to preventative services being offered in primary care. This systematic review complements previous reviews of real-world settings by exploring the significant factors in prevention, and the findings are relevant to academics, policymakers, patients and practitioners interested in understanding the factors associated with the delivery and uptake of diabetes prevention interventions.

Internet-based Self-Management Support for Patients With Well-Controlled Type 2 Diabetes: A Real-Life Study

Background

Little attention has been paid to self-management support of patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Most studies evaluated the addition of self-management support to regular diabetes care, but self-management as an alternative for part of regular diabetes care has hardly been studied. In this study, we offered patients with well-controlled T2DM the opportunity to perform the 3 quarterly monitoring sessions at home using an Internet-based self-management program, resulting in online personalized advice.

Objective

The aim of our study was to assess the reach and feasibility of an Internet-based diabetes self-management support program for patients with well-controlled T2DM, addressing both primary care providers’ (PCPs) opinions and patients’ willingness to participate in such a support program.

Methods

PCPs assessed patients’ eligibility for Internet-based self-management, and patients were offered the opportunity to participate. Characteristics of eligible and ineligible patients were compared, as well as those of participants and nonparticipants, also with regard to quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and illness perceptions. Multivariate logistic regression models were performed and odds ratios (ORs) calculated with 95% CIs.

Results

Almost half (128/282, 45.4%) of the patients with well-controlled T2DM were considered ineligible by their PCPs mainly because of cognitive impairment and language barriers (8.2% and 8.9%). Older patients (OR for each year 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09, P<.001), non–Western European patients (OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.67-7.92, P=.001), and patients with a longer diabetes duration (OR for each year 1.56, 95% CI 1.04-2.34, P=.03) were more often regarded as ineligible. Of the 154 patients considered eligible, 57 (37.0%) consented to participate and 30 (10.6%) started the program. Of 57 participants, 45 returned the 3 questionnaires; 21 of 97 nonparticipants returned the questionnaires. Nonparticipants less often thought that their disease would last their entire life (median 8.0 vs 10.0, P=.03) and they were more satisfied with their current treatment than participants (DTSQ total score 44.0 vs 40.0, P=.05). There was no significant difference in quality of life between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

PCPs considered half of their patients with well-controlled T2DM incapable of Internet-based self-management mainly because of cognitive impairment and language barriers; of the selected patients, about 1 out of 3 was willing to participate. Older patients, non–Western European patients, and patients with a higher BMI were less likely to participate. Predominantly, practical issues (such as Internet problems) hindered implementation of the Internet-based self-management program.

Shared decision making in endocrinology: present and future directions

In medicine and endocrinology, there are few clinical circumstances in which clinicians can accurately predict what is best for their patients. As a result, patients and clinicians frequently have to make decisions about which there is uncertainty. Uncertainty results from limitations in the research evidence, unclear patient preferences, or an inability to predict how treatments will fit into patients' daily lives. The work that patients and clinicians do together to address the patient's situation and engage in a deliberative dialogue about reasonable treatment options is often called shared decision making. Decision aids are evidence-based tools that facilitate this process. Shared decision making is a patient-centred approach in which clinicians share information about the benefits, harms, and burden of different reasonable diagnostic and treatment options, and patients explain what matters to them in view of their particular values, preferences, and personal context. Beyond the ethical argument in support of this approach, decision aids have been shown to improve patients' knowledge about the available options, accuracy of risk estimates, and decisional comfort. Decision aids also promote patient participation in the decision-making process. Despite accumulating evidence from clinical trials, policy support, and expert recommendations in endocrinology practice guidelines, shared decision making is still not routinely implemented in endocrine practice. Additional work is needed to enrich the number of available tools and to implement them in practice workflows. Also, although the evidence from randomised controlled trials favours the use of this shared decision making in other settings, populations, and illnesses, the effect of this approach has been studied in a few endocrine disorders. Future pragmatic trials are needed to explore the effect and feasibility of shared decision making implementation into routine endocrinology and primary care practice. With the available evidence, however, endocrinologists can now start to practice shared decision making, partner with their patients, and use their expertise to formulate treatment plans that reflect patient preferences and are more likely to fit into the context of patients' lives. In this Personal View, we describe shared decision making, the evidence behind the approach, and why and how both endocrinologists and their patients could benefit from this approach.

Patients have unwritten duties: experiences of patients with type 1 diabetes in health care

AIM

To describe the perceptions and experiences of patients with type 1 diabetes, examine their duties and responsibilities for their own care and increase our understanding of the value-based role of patients in the changing healthcare environment.

BACKGROUND

Current type 1 diabetes care highlights the importance of self-care and of patient involvement, which implies the need to evaluate the patients' role. Little is known about patients' views about their own role, and related responsibilities and duties for their own care. This is essential if we are to promote efficient patient involvement.

DESIGN

This study had a qualitative descriptive design.

METHODS

We conducted one-to-one themed interviews with 20 patients with type 1 diabetes during summer 2013 at a diabetes polyclinic in Finland. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis.

FINDINGS

Patients with type 1 diabetes believed that their well-being and self-care required them to consider their own responsibilities and their duties towards themselves, family members, society and healthcare professionals. These duties were seen to have implications for care outcomes, quality of life, and effectiveness and economy in health care. However, patients' background, motivation, relationships with healthcare staff and patient counselling influenced whether they fulfilled those duties, which are all crucial elements in type 1 diabetes care.

CONCLUSION

Patient duties are significant for the well-being of patients with type 1 diabetes, but also for their successful involvement in their care. This study can be used to inform the development of individual care planning and support of patient involvement.

Reasons and barriers for using a patient portal: survey among patients with diabetes mellitus

Background

The use of a Web portal for patients with diabetes mellitus to access their own personal health record may result in improved diabetes outcomes. However, the adoption by patients is slow. This may be caused by patient characteristics, but also by the content, layout, and promotion of the portal. Detailed knowledge about this could help increase patients’ participation in Web portals.

Objective

The aim was to study the opinions of patients with diabetes and identify perceived barriers to using a Web portal to optimize its use.

Methods

We conducted a survey among patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus from 62 primary care practices and 1 outpatient hospital clinic in the central area of the Netherlands who all used the same electronic health record with a Web portal. Questionnaires about patient characteristics, opinions about reasons for use or nonuse, and about portal content were sent to 1500 patients with a login and 3000 patients without a login to the Web portal. Patient groups were stratified according to login frequency. Demographic and diabetes-related variables were analyzed with multivariable regression analysis.

Results

The total response rate was 66.63% (2391/4399); 1390 of 4399 patients (31.60%) were eligible for analysis. There were 413 regular users (login frequency more than once) and 758 nonusers (no login). Most nonusers (72.4%) stated that the main reason for not requesting a login was that they were unaware of the existence of the portal. Other barriers reported by patients were disinterest in managing their own disease (28.5%, 216/758) and feelings of inadequacy with the use of computers and Internet (11.6%, 88/758). Patients treated by a general practitioner were more frequently nonusers compared to patients treated by an internist (78.8%, 666/846 vs 28.3%, 92/325; P<.001) and more users than nonusers became aware of the Web portal through their physician (94.9%, 392/413 vs 48.8%, 102/209; P<.001). Nonusers perceived specific portal content as not as useful as regular users did, especially access to laboratory values (71.7%, 383/534 vs 92.3%, 372/403), rereading clinic visits (61.3%, 320/522 vs 89.6%, 360/402), e-messaging (52.0%, 262/504 vs 74.6%, 299/401), and uploading results to the glucose diary (45.3%, 229/506 vs 74.0%, 288/400; all P<.001).

Conclusions

Our study shows that unawareness of the patient portal is the main barrier of enrollment. Users and nonusers perceive the usefulness of the portal differently and do not have the same recommendations for additional functionalities. To increase patients’ participation in a Web portal, the unawareness of its existence and its possibilities need to be addressed by their health care professionals.

Differences between diabetes patients who are interested or not in the use of a patient Web portal

OBJECTIVE

A patient Web portal allows patients to access their personal health record through the Internet. It may improve diabetes outcomes, but the adoption is unsatisfactory. We examined the differences between patients with and without a login in order to optimize its use.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A survey was conducted among patients from 62 general practices and one outpatient clinic that all use a diabetes Web portal. Between November 2011 and March 2012 questionnaires were sent to 1,500 patients with and 3,000 patients without a login. Patient groups were stratified according to type of diabetes. Demographic and diabetes-related variables were analyzed with multivariable regression analysis.

RESULTS

The total response rate was 67%. Fewer than 50% of the patients did request a login. Among 128 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, those with a login (89.8%) were younger and more frequently treated by an internist. In 1,262 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, fewer patients had a log-in (41.0%), and the likelihood of having a login was independently associated with younger age, male gender, higher educational level, treatment by an internist, longer duration of diabetes, and polypharmacy (all P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with type 1 diabetes request a login more frequently than patients with type 2 diabetes, and patients with a login are strikingly different than patients without. The healthcare provider seems to play an important role in patients' Web utilization. Simply promoting use of electronic healthcare methods does not make sense. It is important to address disparities between patient groups to optimize the use of a Web portal.

A systematic review of patient-reported measures of burden of treatment in three chronic diseases

Background

Burden of treatment refers to the workload of health care and its impact on patient functioning and well-being. There are a number of patient-reported measures that assess burden of treatment in single diseases or in specific treatment contexts. A review of such measures could help identify content for a general measure of treatment burden that could be used with patients dealing with multiple chronic conditions. We reviewed the content and psychometric properties of patient-reported measures that assess aspects of treatment burden in three chronic diseases, ie, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.

Methods

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, and EBSCO CINAHL through November 2011. Abstracts were independently reviewed by two people, with disagreements adjudicated by a third person. Retrieved articles were reviewed to confirm relevance, with patient-reported measures scrutinized to determine consistency with the definition of burden of treatment. Descriptive information and psychometric properties were extracted.

Results

A total of 5686 abstracts were identified from the database searches. After abstract review, 359 full-text articles were retrieved, of which 76 met our inclusion criteria. An additional 22 articles were identified from the references of included articles. From the 98 studies, 57 patient-reported measures of treatment burden (full measures or components within measures) were identified. Most were multi-item scales (89%) and assessed treatment burden in diabetes (82%). Only 15 measures were developed using direct patient input and had demonstrable evidence of reliability, scale structure, and multiple forms of validity; six of these demonstrated evidence of sensitivity to change. We identified 12 content domains common across measures and disease types.

Conclusion

Available measures of treatment burden in single diseases can inform derivation of a patient-centered measure of the construct in patients with multiple chronic conditions. Patients should take part in developing the measure to ensure salience and relevance.