Novel approaches to diabetes care: a population perspective

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to outline the current state of diabetes in the United States and to explore novel, population-based approaches that involve the patient, provider and community, in the context of the health system, to improve diabetes care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently, there is sub-optimal delivery of diabetes processes and outcomes in the United States. The US healthcare system remains rooted in acute and episodic care, resulting in consistently low-quality healthcare, and is not equipped to handle the diabetes epidemic. Evidence demonstrates that models of chronic care are needed in order for system changes to occur. Recent studies that have implemented such models are beginning to demonstrate improvements in both process measures and clinical outcomes following interventions which incorporate a comprehensive approach to chronic illness care.

SUMMARY

Research over the past 5+ years demonstrates that a more comprehensive approach to diabetes care is needed. Only recently have studies been able to validate this concept, however. Applied research that strives to translate available knowledge and operationalize it in clinical and public health practice is needed in order for diabetes care to improve.

Does patient behavior or access factors have the largest influence on screening in type 1 diabetes?

OBJECTIVE

Successful disease management is heavily influenced by access to care issues and patient behavior. Screening tests to detect chronic complications are part of diabetes management and may be influenced by access to care or patient decisions. The objective of this research was to examine how strongly access to care and patient behavior predict screening practices.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Information on screening practices, access to care, and diabetes management were identified from the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study at two time points: 1998-2001 and 2002-2006. Information on access to care and patient behavior identified in 1998-2001 were examined relative to screening practices observed in 2002-2006.

RESULTS

Access-to-care issues positively predicted subsequent screening practices. Specifically, specialist care visits, number of doctor visits, and intensive insulin therapy were all strong predictors for screening use. Receipt of the recommended level of screening tests was also positively associated with the patient behavior of daily blood glucose testing.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study show that access to care, in general, and access to quality diabetes care, in specific, play a key role in the use of recommended screening tests in type 1 diabetic patients. These data suggest that future efforts to improve screening practices in the type 1 diabetic population should address issues related to access to care.

Influences on screening for chronic diabetes complications in type 1 diabetes

Screening for the long-term complications of diabetes is a critical component of diabetes management; however, evidence demonstrates that screening rates in diabetes populations are suboptimal. Our objective was to determine the use and predictors of optimal screening behavior, defined as receiving a fasting lipid test, dilated eye exam, spot urine test, foot examination, blood pressure reading, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the previous year in a representative cohort of subjects with type 1 diabetes. Data are from the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study, a prospective cohort study of subjects with childhood onset type 1 diabetes. Data from 325 participants who responded to a survey during 1999-2001 were included in analyses. Reported screening rates were as follows: 87.9% had at least one HbA1c measurement in the past year, 63% had a foot exam, 73.3% had a spot urine test, 81.9% had a dilated eye exam, 93.5% had a blood pressure reading and 68.7% received a fasting lipid profile. Within this group, 37.7% of subjects reported undergoing all five tests (optimal screening). Independent correlates of optimal screening were receiving care from a specialist provider (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-4.1) and blood glucose monitoring at least weekly (OR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.1-6.2). These findings indicate that a large proportion of persons with type 1 diabetes are not being screened at the optimal level. Our data indicate that efforts to rectify this should focus on men and those who do not monitor blood glucose, and should involve primary care practitioners.