Technology can be used to supplement healthcare provider diabetes care by providing both educational and motivational support. Education can be provided using technology allowing patients to learn new practices and ro...Technology can be used to supplement healthcare provider diabetes care by providing both educational and motivational support. Education can be provided using technology allowing patients to learn new practices and routines related to diabetes management. Technology can support daily diabetes self-management activities including blood glucose monitoring, exercising, healthy eating, taking medication, monitoring for complications, and problem-solving. This article describes an integrative review conducted to evaluate the types of technology being used to facilitate diabetes self-management and the effect of that technology on self-management and diabetes outcomes for adults living with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A literature review was conducted by searching Medline, Pub Med, and Psych INFO databases using the search terms: diabetes self-management, technology, type 2 diabetes, smartphones, cell phones, and diabetes mellitus covering the years from 2008-2013. Articles relying on secondary data(editorials, systematic reviews) and articles describing study protocol only were excluded. Fourteen studies including qualitative, quasiexperimental, and randomized controlled trial designs were identified and included in the review. The review found that technological interventions had positive impacts on diabetes outcomes including improvements in hemoglobin A1 C levels, diabetes self-management behaviors, and diabetes self-efficacy. Results indicate that technological interventions can benefit people living with diabetes when used in conjunction with diabetes care delivered by healthcare providers.展开更多
AIM:To study the acceptability of incentives for behavior changes in individuals with diabetes,comparing financial incentives to self-rewards and non-financial incentives.METHODS:A national online survey of United Sta...AIM:To study the acceptability of incentives for behavior changes in individuals with diabetes,comparing financial incentives to self-rewards and non-financial incentives.METHODS:A national online survey of United States adults with diabetes was conducted in March 2013(n = 153).This survey was designed for this study,with iterative testing and modifications in a pilot population.We measured the demographics of individuals,their interest in incentives,as well as the perceived challenge of diabetes self-management tasks,and expectations of incentives to improve diabetes self-management(financial,non-financial and self-rewards).Using an ordered logistic regression model,we assessed the association between a 32-point score of the perceived challenge of the self-management tasks and the three types of rewards.RESULTS:Ninety-six percent of individuals were interested in financial incentives,60% in non-financial incentives and 72% in self-rewards.Patients were less likely to use financial incentives when they perceived the behavior to be more challenging(odds ratio of using financial incentives of 0.82(95%CI:0.72-0.93) for each point of the behavior score).While the effectiveness of incentives may vary according to the perceived level of challenge of each behavior,participants did not expect to need large amounts to motivate them to modify their behavior.The expected average amounts needed to motivate a 5 lb weight loss in our population and to maintain this weight change for a year was $258(interquartile range of $10-100) and $713(interquartile range of $25-250) for a 15 lb weight loss.The difference in mean amount estimates for 5 lb and 15 lb weight loss was significant(P < 0.001).CONCLUSION:Individuals with diabetes are willing to consider financial incentives to improve diabetes selfmanagement.Future studies are needed to explore incentive programs and their effectiveness for diabetes.展开更多
Adequate care of type 2 diabetes is reflected by the individual’s adherence to dietary guidance;yet, few patients are engaged in diabetes self-care at the recommended level, regardless of race/ethnicity. Few studies ...Adequate care of type 2 diabetes is reflected by the individual’s adherence to dietary guidance;yet, few patients are engaged in diabetes self-care at the recommended level, regardless of race/ethnicity. Few studies on the effect of dietary medical advice on diabetes self-management (DSM) and glycemic control have been conducted on Haitian and African American adults with type 2 diabetes. These relationships were assessed in total of 254 Blacks with type 2 diabetes (Haitian Americans = 129;African Americans = 125) recruited from Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, Florida by community outreach methods. Although dietary advice received was not significantly different between the two Black ethnicities, given advice “to follow a diet” as a predictor of “using food groups” was significant for Haitian Americans, but not for African Americans. Haitian Americans who were advised to follow a diet were approximately 3 times more likely to sometimes or often use food groups (or exchange lists) in planning meals. Less than optimal glycemic control (A1C > 7.2) was inversely related to DSM for African Americans;but the relationship was not significant for Haitian Americans. A one unit increase in DSM score decreased the odds ratio point estimate of having less than optimal glycemic control (A1C > 7.2%) by a factor of 0.94 in African Americans. These results suggest that medical advice for diet plans may not be communicated effectively for DSM for some races/ethnicities. Research aimed at uncovering the enablers and barriers of diet management specific to Black ethnicities with type 2 diabetes is recommended.展开更多
目的评价在共同照护面对面+远程全病程规范化管理模式下T2DM患者的管理成本效益情况,采用CORE模型评价北京大学第一医院的糖尿病共同照护模式,对管理T2DM患者长期经济与健康效果。方法选取2016年10月至2021年12月于北京大学第一医院糖...目的评价在共同照护面对面+远程全病程规范化管理模式下T2DM患者的管理成本效益情况,采用CORE模型评价北京大学第一医院的糖尿病共同照护模式,对管理T2DM患者长期经济与健康效果。方法选取2016年10月至2021年12月于北京大学第一医院糖尿病共同照护模式下,随访≥1年的T2DM患者1835例作为共同照护组,另选取2019年5月至2021年12月于北京大学第一医院,普通随访≥1年的T2DM患者126例作为普通随访组。采用CORE模型(IQVIA CORE Diabetes model 9.0),基于中国T2DM患者公开临床数据,模拟两组管理模式下T2DM患者30年治疗总成本、期望寿命和质量调整生命年(QALY)。成本以直接医疗成本计算,包括降糖药物、管理人员和DM并发症的成本。直接医疗成本和效用均采用5%贴现率。采用单因素敏感性分析评估研究结果的稳定性。结果与普通随访组比较,共同照护组30年治疗成本增加22431.50(261946.98±5110.22vs 239515.48±5381.53)元,期望寿命增加0.104(12.698±0.108 vs 12.595±0.113)年,QALY增加0.099(9.105±0.081 vs 9.005±0.085),增量成本效果比值为225669.00(95%CI 205290.00~248880.00)元/QALY。敏感性分析结果和可接受曲线图进一步验证了结果的稳健性。结论相比于传统模式,共同照护采用面对面+远程全病程规范化管理模式可显著提高T2DM患者的期望寿命,是一项具有成本效益比的管理模式。展开更多
Objectives: Treatment preferences affect treatment engagement, adherence and outcomes. There is limited knowledge of patients’ preferences for Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME). This study explored the prefer...Objectives: Treatment preferences affect treatment engagement, adherence and outcomes. There is limited knowledge of patients’ preferences for Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME). This study explored the preferences of Canadians with diabetes for components, mode and dose for implementing DSME interventions. Methods: A cross-sectional design was used. Adults with diabetes completed a questionnaire to assess participants’ preferences for components (i.e. content), mode (i.e. teaching strategies, delivering formats) and dose (i.e. number and length of sessions) of DSME. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results: Participants (n = 100) were middle-aged men and women, who had diabetes for 6.1 years and previously received (95.0%) DSME. They indicated preference for DSME to include a combination of educational, behavioral and psychological components;to be delivered in individual, face-to-face sessions (4 sessions, 60 minutes each, given monthly) that allowed discussion with one diabetes educator to develop and carry out a care plan. Conclusions: Diabetes educators may consider eliciting patient’s preferences and tailoring DSME to fit patients’ preferences. Delivering interventions that are consistent with patients’ preferences increases their motivation to engage in intervention, satisfaction and adherence to treatment and achievement of desired outcomes.展开更多
文摘Technology can be used to supplement healthcare provider diabetes care by providing both educational and motivational support. Education can be provided using technology allowing patients to learn new practices and routines related to diabetes management. Technology can support daily diabetes self-management activities including blood glucose monitoring, exercising, healthy eating, taking medication, monitoring for complications, and problem-solving. This article describes an integrative review conducted to evaluate the types of technology being used to facilitate diabetes self-management and the effect of that technology on self-management and diabetes outcomes for adults living with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A literature review was conducted by searching Medline, Pub Med, and Psych INFO databases using the search terms: diabetes self-management, technology, type 2 diabetes, smartphones, cell phones, and diabetes mellitus covering the years from 2008-2013. Articles relying on secondary data(editorials, systematic reviews) and articles describing study protocol only were excluded. Fourteen studies including qualitative, quasiexperimental, and randomized controlled trial designs were identified and included in the review. The review found that technological interventions had positive impacts on diabetes outcomes including improvements in hemoglobin A1 C levels, diabetes self-management behaviors, and diabetes self-efficacy. Results indicate that technological interventions can benefit people living with diabetes when used in conjunction with diabetes care delivered by healthcare providers.
文摘AIM:To study the acceptability of incentives for behavior changes in individuals with diabetes,comparing financial incentives to self-rewards and non-financial incentives.METHODS:A national online survey of United States adults with diabetes was conducted in March 2013(n = 153).This survey was designed for this study,with iterative testing and modifications in a pilot population.We measured the demographics of individuals,their interest in incentives,as well as the perceived challenge of diabetes self-management tasks,and expectations of incentives to improve diabetes self-management(financial,non-financial and self-rewards).Using an ordered logistic regression model,we assessed the association between a 32-point score of the perceived challenge of the self-management tasks and the three types of rewards.RESULTS:Ninety-six percent of individuals were interested in financial incentives,60% in non-financial incentives and 72% in self-rewards.Patients were less likely to use financial incentives when they perceived the behavior to be more challenging(odds ratio of using financial incentives of 0.82(95%CI:0.72-0.93) for each point of the behavior score).While the effectiveness of incentives may vary according to the perceived level of challenge of each behavior,participants did not expect to need large amounts to motivate them to modify their behavior.The expected average amounts needed to motivate a 5 lb weight loss in our population and to maintain this weight change for a year was $258(interquartile range of $10-100) and $713(interquartile range of $25-250) for a 15 lb weight loss.The difference in mean amount estimates for 5 lb and 15 lb weight loss was significant(P < 0.001).CONCLUSION:Individuals with diabetes are willing to consider financial incentives to improve diabetes selfmanagement.Future studies are needed to explore incentive programs and their effectiveness for diabetes.
文摘Adequate care of type 2 diabetes is reflected by the individual’s adherence to dietary guidance;yet, few patients are engaged in diabetes self-care at the recommended level, regardless of race/ethnicity. Few studies on the effect of dietary medical advice on diabetes self-management (DSM) and glycemic control have been conducted on Haitian and African American adults with type 2 diabetes. These relationships were assessed in total of 254 Blacks with type 2 diabetes (Haitian Americans = 129;African Americans = 125) recruited from Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, Florida by community outreach methods. Although dietary advice received was not significantly different between the two Black ethnicities, given advice “to follow a diet” as a predictor of “using food groups” was significant for Haitian Americans, but not for African Americans. Haitian Americans who were advised to follow a diet were approximately 3 times more likely to sometimes or often use food groups (or exchange lists) in planning meals. Less than optimal glycemic control (A1C > 7.2) was inversely related to DSM for African Americans;but the relationship was not significant for Haitian Americans. A one unit increase in DSM score decreased the odds ratio point estimate of having less than optimal glycemic control (A1C > 7.2%) by a factor of 0.94 in African Americans. These results suggest that medical advice for diet plans may not be communicated effectively for DSM for some races/ethnicities. Research aimed at uncovering the enablers and barriers of diet management specific to Black ethnicities with type 2 diabetes is recommended.
文摘目的评价在共同照护面对面+远程全病程规范化管理模式下T2DM患者的管理成本效益情况,采用CORE模型评价北京大学第一医院的糖尿病共同照护模式,对管理T2DM患者长期经济与健康效果。方法选取2016年10月至2021年12月于北京大学第一医院糖尿病共同照护模式下,随访≥1年的T2DM患者1835例作为共同照护组,另选取2019年5月至2021年12月于北京大学第一医院,普通随访≥1年的T2DM患者126例作为普通随访组。采用CORE模型(IQVIA CORE Diabetes model 9.0),基于中国T2DM患者公开临床数据,模拟两组管理模式下T2DM患者30年治疗总成本、期望寿命和质量调整生命年(QALY)。成本以直接医疗成本计算,包括降糖药物、管理人员和DM并发症的成本。直接医疗成本和效用均采用5%贴现率。采用单因素敏感性分析评估研究结果的稳定性。结果与普通随访组比较,共同照护组30年治疗成本增加22431.50(261946.98±5110.22vs 239515.48±5381.53)元,期望寿命增加0.104(12.698±0.108 vs 12.595±0.113)年,QALY增加0.099(9.105±0.081 vs 9.005±0.085),增量成本效果比值为225669.00(95%CI 205290.00~248880.00)元/QALY。敏感性分析结果和可接受曲线图进一步验证了结果的稳健性。结论相比于传统模式,共同照护采用面对面+远程全病程规范化管理模式可显著提高T2DM患者的期望寿命,是一项具有成本效益比的管理模式。
文摘Objectives: Treatment preferences affect treatment engagement, adherence and outcomes. There is limited knowledge of patients’ preferences for Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME). This study explored the preferences of Canadians with diabetes for components, mode and dose for implementing DSME interventions. Methods: A cross-sectional design was used. Adults with diabetes completed a questionnaire to assess participants’ preferences for components (i.e. content), mode (i.e. teaching strategies, delivering formats) and dose (i.e. number and length of sessions) of DSME. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results: Participants (n = 100) were middle-aged men and women, who had diabetes for 6.1 years and previously received (95.0%) DSME. They indicated preference for DSME to include a combination of educational, behavioral and psychological components;to be delivered in individual, face-to-face sessions (4 sessions, 60 minutes each, given monthly) that allowed discussion with one diabetes educator to develop and carry out a care plan. Conclusions: Diabetes educators may consider eliciting patient’s preferences and tailoring DSME to fit patients’ preferences. Delivering interventions that are consistent with patients’ preferences increases their motivation to engage in intervention, satisfaction and adherence to treatment and achievement of desired outcomes.
