Satisfaction of Well-controlled Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Three-monthly and Six-monthly Monitoring

Overview

Journal BMC Fam Pract

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Health Services
Public Health

Date 2013 Aug 1

PMID 23899039

Citations 6

Authors

Paulien R Wermeling

Jolien Janssen

Kees J Gorter

Joline W J Beulens

Guy E H M Rutten

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Patient's satisfaction with monitoring frequency is of interest when implementing six-monthly monitoring for well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients. Here we want to determine the satisfaction of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients with either three-monthly or six-monthly diabetes monitoring and their future preference.

Methods: Survey among 2215 well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients (not using insulin, HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤5.2 mmol/l) who participated in the EFFIMODI study, a randomised controlled patient-preference equivalence trial. At baseline, participants were asked whether they had a strong preference for three-monthly or six-monthly monitoring or not. If not, they were randomised to either three-monthly or six-monthly monitoring, while the others were monitored according to their preference. After eighteen months, all participants were asked whether they were satisfied with the monitoring frequency and about their future preference. Patient characteristics associated with satisfaction were also examined.

Results: Most patients (70.8%) would like to continue their monitoring frequency. Patients from the preference groups were more often satisfied than randomised patients (92.7% and 88.1%, respectively) and patients monitored three-monthly were more often satisfied than patients monitored six-monthly (93.5% and 88.5%, respectively). Higher age, better physical health, less diabetes-related distress, higher diabetes treatment satisfaction and less perceived hyper- and hypoglycaemias were associated with a higher monitoring satisfaction.

Conclusions: Most well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients were satisfied with their monitoring frequency and would like to continue it. Although the satisfaction for three-monthly monitoring was slightly higher, the satisfaction with six-monthly monitoring was still rather high (88.5%).

Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN93201802.

Citing Articles

Optimizing the frequency of physician encounters in follow - up care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.

Xu W, Mak I, Zhang R, Yu E, Ng A, Lui D BMC Prim Care. 2024; 25(1):41.

PMID: 38279105 PMC: 10811944. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-024-02277-9.

Implementation of pharmacotherapy monitoring: Experiences and views of medicine users.

Ronngard-Jalkanen A, Saastamoinen L, Aarnio E, Timonen J Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2023; 12:100377.

PMID: 38074835 PMC: 10704429. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2023.100377.

The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on diabetes care: the perspective of healthcare providers across Europe.

Van Grondelle S, Van Bruggen S, Rauh S, Van der Zwan M, Cebrian A, Seidu S Prim Care Diabetes. 2023; 17(2):141-147.

PMID: 36822977 PMC: 9933343. DOI: 10.1016/j.pcd.2023.02.002.

Experiences with tailoring of primary diabetes care in well-organised general practices: a mixed-methods study.

van Bruggen S, Kasteleyn M, Rauh S, Meijer J, Busch K, Numans M BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1):1218.

PMID: 34753463 PMC: 8577855. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-07198-2.

Analysis and Study of Diabetes Follow-Up Data Using a Data-Mining-Based Approach in New Urban Area of Urumqi, Xinjiang, China, 2016-2017.

Li Y, Li H, Yao H Comput Math Methods Med. 2018; 2018:7207151.

PMID: 30112018 PMC: 6077367. DOI: 10.1155/2018/7207151.

References

Burgers J, Bailey J, Klazinga N, van der Bij A, Grol R, Feder G . Inside guidelines: comparative analysis of recommendations and evidence in diabetes guidelines from 13 countries. Diabetes Care. 2002; 25(11):1933-9. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.11.1933. View

Gulliford T, Opomu M, Wilson E, Hanham I, Epstein R . Popularity of less frequent follow up for breast cancer in randomised study: initial findings from the hotline study. BMJ. 1997; 314(7075):174-7. PMC: 2125684. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7075.174. View

Polonsky W, Anderson B, Lohrer P, Welch G, Jacobson A, Aponte J . Assessment of diabetes-related distress. Diabetes Care. 1995; 18(6):754-60. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.18.6.754. View

Brewin C, Bradley C . Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1989; 299(6694):313-5. PMC: 1837157. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.299.6694.313. View

Brooks R . EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996; 37(1):53-72. DOI: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6. View

Whiting D, Guariguata L, Weil C, Shaw J . IDF diabetes atlas: global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2011 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011; 94(3):311-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.10.029. View

Birtwhistle R, Godwin M, Delva M, Casson R, Lam M, MacDonald S . Randomised equivalence trial comparing three month and six month follow up of patients with hypertension by family practitioners. BMJ. 2004; 328(7433):204. PMC: 318487. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.37967.374063.EE. View

Ware Jr J, Sherbourne C . The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30(6):473-83. View

Welch H, Chapko M, James K, Schwartz L, Woloshin S . The role of patients and providers in the timing of follow-up visits. Telephone Care Study Group. J Gen Intern Med. 1999; 14(4):223-9. PMC: 1496567. DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00321.x. View

10.

Roos N, Carriere K, Friesen D . Factors influencing the frequency of visits by hypertensive patients to primary care physicians in Winnipeg. CMAJ. 1998; 159(7):777-83. PMC: 1232734. View

11.

Wermeling P, Gorter K, van Stel H, Rutten G . Both cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidity are related to health status in well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients: a cross-sectional analysis. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2012; 11:121. PMC: 3508839. DOI: 10.1186/1475-2840-11-121. View

12.

Jamous R, Sweileh W, Abu-Taha A, Sawalha A, Zyoud S, Morisky D . Adherence and satisfaction with oral hypoglycemic medications: a pilot study in Palestine. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011; 33(6):942-8. DOI: 10.1007/s11096-011-9561-7. View

13.

Wick A, Koller M . Views of patients and physicians on follow-up visits: results from a cross-sectional study in Swiss primary care. Swiss Med Wkly. 2005; 135(9-10):139-44. DOI: 10.4414/smw.2005.10871. View

14.

Plantinga L, Fink N, Sadler J, Levey A, Levin N, Rubin H . Frequency of patient-physician contact and patient outcomes in hemodialysis care. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003; 15(1):210-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.asn.0000106101.48237.9d. View

15.

DeSalvo K, Block J, Muntner P, Merrill W . Predictors of variation in office visit interval assignment. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003; 15(5):399-405. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzg067. View

16.

Torgerson D, Sibbald B . Understanding controlled trials. What is a patient preference trial?. BMJ. 1998; 316(7128):360. PMC: 2665528. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.316.7128.360. View

17.

Stone M, Wilkinson J, Charpentier G, Clochard N, Grassi G, Lindblad U . Evaluation and comparison of guidelines for the management of people with type 2 diabetes from eight European countries. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009; 87(2):252-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.020. View

18.

Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Wasson J, Renfrew R, Welch H . Setting the revisit interval in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 1999; 14(4):230-5. PMC: 1496560. DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00322.x. View

19.

Parchman M, Zeber J, Palmer R . Participatory decision making, patient activation, medication adherence, and intermediate clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a STARNet study. Ann Fam Med. 2010; 8(5):410-7. PMC: 2939416. DOI: 10.1370/afm.1161. View

20.

Schoenthaler A, Schwartz B, Wood C, Stewart W . Patient and physician factors associated with adherence to diabetes medications. Diabetes Educ. 2012; 38(3):397-408. DOI: 10.1177/0145721712440333. View