A randomized comparison of the terms estimated average glucose versus hemoglobin A1C.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the hypothesis that using estimated average glucose (eAG) while instructing patients yields better knowledge retention than using the term hemoglobin A1C (A1C).

METHODS

Patients with diabetes who had poor baseline understanding of A1C (determined by a 4-question survey) were randomized into 1 of 2 groups: A1C or eAG. Depending on randomization, providers discussed patients' current status and personal targets for glycemic control using either the term A1C or estimated average glucose. Patients had a telephone survey 3-4 weeks later, assessing change in knowledge of glycemic control.

RESULTS

The 80 participants who completed follow-up had similar baseline characteristics, including poor understanding of A1C and poor recall of previous A1C values. At the 3-4 week follow-up, average score for each survey question improved significantly in both groups, with mean composite score increasing in the A1C group by 32% and in the eAG group by 33%. There was no suggestion of a difference in degree of improvement between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients previously unfamiliar with the meaning of A1C, using either term (A1C or eAG) resulted in an equal improvement in knowledge. Within this study, eAG was not a more understandable term, or an easier concept for patients to remember. Further research is needed to test whether use of the term A1C should be replaced by eAG.