Factors associated with glycaemic control in adults with Type 1 diabetes: a registry-based analysis including 7601 individuals from 34 centres in Norway

A Cross-sectional Study on the Impact of Educational Status on Physical Activity Level in Danish and English Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Physical activity is associated with improved health in people with type 1 diabetes. However, physical activity level may be associated with socioeconomic status. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the association between education level and physical activity level among people with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, data on physical activity level (high or low) was measured using the Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale, and education level (low, medium, or high) was self-reported.

RESULTS

Respondents were recruited from outpatient clinics (Steno Diabetes Centre Aarhus, Denmark; Nordsjællands Hospital, Denmark; or Sheffield Diabetes and Endocrine Centre, United Kingdom), by health-care personnel from September 2019 to July 2021. A total of 324 people with type 1 diabetes were included (54% male, median age 50 years [interquartile range 30-60 years]). Education level was low in 10%, medium in 33%, and high in 57%. A logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, sex, cohabitation status and nationality, found that a medium vs. high education level was associated with lower odds of a high physical activity level (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.94, p=0.029), while no association was found for low vs. high education level with high physical activity level (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25-1.29, p=0.173).

CONCLUSIONS

Medium education level compared with a high education level was associated with a lower level of physical activity in people with type 1 diabetes. Health-care professionals are advised to be attentive of physical activity levels among people with type 1 diabetes.

Intensified follow-up of patients with type 1 diabetes and poor glycaemic control: a multicentre quality improvement collaborative based on data from the Norwegian Diabetes Register for Adults

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and poor glycaemic control are at high risk of developing microvascular and macrovascular complications. The aim of this study was to determine if a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) initiated by the Norwegian Diabetes Register for adults (NDR-A) could reduce the proportion of patients with T1DM with poor glycaemic control (defined as glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)≥75 mmol/mol) and reduce mean HbA1c at participating clinics compared with 14 control clinics.

METHOD

Multicentre study with controlled before and after design. Representatives of 13 diabetes outpatient clinics (n=5145 patients with T1DM) in the intervention group attended four project meetings during an 18-month QIC. They were required to identify areas requiring improvement at their clinic and make action plans. Continuous feedback on HbA1c outcomes was provided by NDR-A during the project. In total 4084 patients with type 1 diabetes attended the control clinics.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2019, the overall proportion of patients with T1DM and HbA1c≥75 mmol/mol in the intervention group were reduced from 19.3% to 14.1% (p<0.001). Corresponding proportions in the control group were reduced from 17.3% (2016) to 14.4% (2019) (p<0.001). Between 2016 and 2019, overall mean HbA1c decreased by 2.8 mmol/mol (p<0.001) at intervention clinics compared with 2.3 mmol/mol (p<0.001) at control clinics. After adjusting for the baseline differences in glycaemic control, there were no significant differences in the overall improvement in glycaemic control between intervention and control clinics.

CONCLUSIONS

The registry linked QIC did not result in a significantly greater improvement in glycaemic control at intervention clinics compared with control clinics. However, there has been a sustained improvement in glycaemic control and importantly a significant reduction in the proportion of patients with poor glycaemic control at both intervention and control clinics during and after the QIC time frame. It is possible that some of this improvement may be due to a spillover effect from the QIC.

Nurses' and physicians' experiences with diabetes consultations and the use of dialogue tools in the DiaPROM pilot trial: A qualitative study

AIM

To explore nurses' and physicians' experiences with diabetes consultations in general and the use of dialogue tools in the Diabetes Patient-Related Outcome Measures (DiaPROM) pilot trial.

METHODS

We used a qualitative explorative design by conducting semi-structured in-depth interviews with five nurses and nine physicians engaged in the DiaPROM pilot trial. The pilot trial aimed to test an intervention utilizing the patient-reported Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) scale and person-centred communication skills as dialogue tools in clinical consultations with adults with type 1 diabetes. We used thematic analysis to analyse the data.

RESULTS

We generated three themes (each including two subthemes) from the analysis of participants' experiences: (1) 'Conflicting demands and priorities' (subthemes: 'Balancing guideline recommendations with patients' main concerns' and 'Experiencing that patients need more support to disclose their emotional concerns'); (2) 'Insights about using dialogue tools' (subthemes: 'The benefits and challenges of using the PAID as a dialogue tool' and 'Communication techniques are helpful'); and (3) 'Facilitating new interventions is challenging' (subthemes: 'Unclear roles and responsibilities in the multidisciplinary teamwork' and 'The capacity sets the limit, not the willingness').

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that the physicians and nurses experienced substantial challenges related to time and resources in the use of dialogue tools to support people's emotional concerns in clinical diabetes consultations. Thus, there is a need for healthcare organizations to adjust priorities to focus on the emotional burden of diabetes if the multidisciplinary diabetes teams are to successfully integrate psychosocial support into routine diabetes care.

Use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical diabetes consultations: the DiaPROM randomised controlled pilot trial

OBJECTIVE

To pilot test the proposed DiaPROM trial components and address uncertainties associated with conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate whether such a trial is feasible.

DESIGN

Two-arm pilot RCT.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged ≥18-39 years, with minimum 1 year type 1 diabetes duration, attending outpatient follow-up. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, severe cognitive, somatic or psychiatric conditions and impaired vision.

RANDOMISATION AND INTERVENTION

All participants completed electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) prior to the annual diabetes consultation. Using computer-generated block-randomisation without blinding, we assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio stratified by sex to receive standard care or an intervention. Physicians reviewed diabetes distress scores (Problem Areas In Diabetes scale) and referred individuals with scores ≥30 or single item(s) ≥3 to minimum two diabetes nurse consultations where reported problems were reviewed and discussed.

OUTCOMES

Recruitment and retention rates; participants perceptions about intervention components. Variance and estimated between-group differences in follow-up scores (Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), WHO 5-Well-being Index, Perceived Competence for Diabetes Scale and glycaemic control) and DDS correlation with baseline scores, to assist sample size calculations.

RESULTS

We randomised 80 participants to the control or intervention arm (one participant was later excluded). 23/39 intervention arm participants qualified for additional consultations and 17 attended. 67/79 attended the 12-month follow-up (15.2% attrition); 5/17 referred to additional consultations were lost to follow-up (29.4% attrition). Participants reported PROMs as relevant (84.6%) and acceptable (97.4%) but rated the usefulness of consultations as moderate to low. Baseline mean±SD DDS score was 2.1±0.69; DDS SD was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.86) at follow-up; correlation between baseline and follow-up DDS scores was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7 to 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The pilot trial revealed need for intervention modifications ahead of a full-scale trial to evaluate use of PROMs in diabetes consultations. Specifically, participant acceptability and intervention implementation need further investigation.

Time spent in hypoglycemia is comparable when the same amount of exercise is performed 5 or 2 days weekly: a randomized crossover study in people with type 1 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

People with type 1 diabetes are recommended to exercise regularly. However, limited evidence exists on how frequency and duration of exercise affect the risk of hypoglycemia. The study aimed to compare the percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia between two 5-day periods with different frequency and duration of physical activity.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this outpatient randomized crossover study, 26 participants aged 18-65 years with type 1 diabetes for ≥2 years and insulin pump use for ≥1 year were included. After a 7-day observation period, participants completed two 5-day intervention periods separated by a washout period of at least 14 days. One period included five exercise sessions on 5 consecutive days (5S), each consisting of 4 min of resistance training and 30 min of aerobic exercise. Another period included two exercise sessions on 2 days with at least 2 days in between (2S), each consisting of 10 min of resistance training and 75 min of aerobic exercise. During each period, participants performed in total 150 min of aerobic exercise and 20 min of resistance training and wore continuous glucose monitors (Dexcom G6) and accelerometers (ActiGraph wGT3X-BT).

RESULTS

Twenty insulin pump-treated adults (10 women) with type 1 diabetes completed the study. The baseline median (range) age was 48 (24-64) years, glycated hemoglobin 55 (44-66) mmol/mol, diabetes duration 24 (8-57) years, and body mass index 28.4 (22.3-35.8) kg/m². No differences were observed between 5S and 2S in the percentage (mean±SD) of time spent below 3.9 mmol/L (3.5%±2.8% vs 4.5%±4.2%, p=0.28), time spent in 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (65.3%±15.0% vs 68.5%±13.6%, p=0.31), time spent above 10.0 mmol/L (31.2%±16.4% vs 27.3%±14.5%, p=0.15), mean glucose (8.7±1.3 mmol/L vs 8.5±1.2 mmol/L, p=0.33) and glycemic variability (35.8%±5.3% vs 35.8%±6.6%, p=0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Time spent in hypoglycemia was comparable between the two 5-day periods with different duration and frequency of physical activity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04089462.