Are newer insulins always the better option?

Non-adherence to guideline recommendations for insulins: a qualitative study amongst primary care practitioners

Background

Guideline adherence is generally high in Dutch general practices. However, the prescription of insulins to type 2 diabetes mellitus patients is often not in line with the guideline, which recommends NPH insulin as first choice and discourages newer insulins. This qualitative study aimed to identify the reasons why primary care healthcare professionals prescribe insulins that are not recommended in guidelines.

Methods

Digital focus groups with primary care practitioners were organised. A topic list was developed, based on reasons for preferred insulins obtained from literature and a priori expert discussions. The discussions were video and audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded with a combination of inductive and deductive codes. Codes were categorized into an existing knowledge, attitudes and behaviour model for guideline non-adherence.

Results

Four focus groups with eleven general practitioners, twelve practice nurses, six pharmacists, four diabetes nurses and two nurse practitioners were organised. The prescription of non-recommended insulins was largely driven by argumentation in the domain of attitudes. Lack of agreement with the guideline was the most prominent category. Most of those perspectives did not reflect disagreement with the guideline recommendations in general, but were about advantages of non-recommended insulins, which led, according to the healthcare professionals, to better applicability of those insulins to specific patients. The belief that guideline-recommended insulins were less effective, positive experience with other insulins and marketing from pharmaceutical companies were also identified as attitude-related barriers to prescribe guideline-recommended insulins. One additional category in the domain of attitudes was identified, namely the lack of uniformity in policy between healthcare professionals in the same practice. Only a small number of external barriers were identified, focusing on patient characteristics that prevented the use of recommended insulins, the availability of contradictory guidelines and other, mostly secondary care, healthcare providers initiating non-recommended insulins. No knowledge-related barriers were identified.

Conclusions

The prescription of non-recommended insulins in primary care is mostly driven by lack of agreement with the guideline recommendations and different interpretation of evidence. These insights can be used for the development of interventions to stimulate primary care practitioners to prescribe guideline-recommended insulins.

Validation of the revised Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ-R) in the primary care setting

Background

Available tools measuring self-management in diabetes are often improperly validated or do not correlate with glucose metabolism. The Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ-R) is a valid tool, that showed strong relationship with glucose metabolism in tertiary care among people with mostly type 1 diabetes.

Aim of the study

To validate the translated DSMQ-R questionnaire in a Hungarian sample of people with predominantly type 2 diabetes in primary care.

Methods

We enrolled 492 adults from 38 practices in this cross-sectional cohort study, who filled out the self-administered questionnaire, consisting of DSMQ-R and the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) questionnaires. Family doctors provided clinical data. The translation process was performed in six steps, reaching the expert committee appraisal. The validity of the questionnaire was evaluated by assessing reliability and construct validity.

Results

Cronbach’s alpha showed the questionnaire to reach good reliability (α = 0.845), although subscales had lower alphas. Contrary to the SDSCA questionnaire, the DSMQ-R sum scale differed significantly between persons on target vs not on target (median (interquartile range): 7.23 (6.17–8.44) vs 6.91 (5.91–8.02), and the DSMQ-R sum scale correlated significantly with BMI, HbA1c and SDSCA sum scale. In multivariate analysis higher DSMQ-R scores were significant predictor of achieving glycemic target goal.

Conclusion

The Hungarian translation of the DSMQ-R is a comprehensible tool to assess self-management of persons with diabetes. The questionnaire is valid and reliable in family practice, although its association with achievement of diabetes HbA1c target is weaker in primary than in tertiary care.