American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network, Leawood, KS, USA.
Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Denver Department of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Transl Behav Med. 2018 May 23;8(3):328-340. doi: 10.1093/tbm/iby024.
Chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes are challenging to manage. This is often due to failure of both the practice of effective diabetes self-care management by the patient and inadequate intervention strategies and follow-up by the health care provider (HCP). The aims of the study are (i) to use a social marketing survey approach to understand the gaps in perceptions between patients with type 2 diabetes and HCPs on diabetes-related topics such as levels of awareness, use and satisfaction with community resources, and perceived barriers to self-management and (ii) to present the results of a public awareness campaign/diabetes management demonstration project (Cities for Life) on change in discordant views between HCPs and patients. The study was conducted as a separate sample pre-post quasiexperimental design study as part of a clinical-community program, Cities for Life in Birmingham, AL. The surveys were administered before (Wave 1 or W1 in 2012) and after (Wave 2 or W2 in 2013) implementation of the Cities for Life program. HCPs (n = 50 and 48) and patients with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes (n = 201 and 204) responded to surveys at W1 and W2, respectively. At both timepoints, HCPs and patients identified diabetes as a major health priority and stated education and information as the most valuable aspects of community-based programs (CBPs). Although 86% of HCPs reported recommending CBPs for lifestyle modification and that their patients frequently participated in CBPs (W1 = 70%; W2 = 82%), fewer patients reported participation (W1 = 31%; W2 = 22%). Patients frequently were not able to name any CBPs for diabetes prevention or treatment (W1 = 45%; W2 = 59%) despite a large proportion perceiving CBPs as valuable (W1 = 41%; W2 = 39%). A substantial percentage of patients reported receiving "a lot of support" from family/friends/or coworkers (W1 = 54%; W2 = 64%; p < .05), but HCPs believed that a much lower proportion of their patients received "a lot of support" (W1 = 0%, W2 = 10%, p < .05). Patients and HCPs independently reported patients' lack of motivation as one of the main barriers to better diabetes care. HCPs and patients reported discordant views regarding two important aspects of diabetes self-management: the use of community resources and the degree of social suppor t received by patients. HCPs overestimated the patients' use of community resources, and underestimated the patients' degree of social support. Trans-disciplinary interventions to address patients' lack of motivation and to engage social support networks may improve communication and mutual understanding about the role and benefits of community resources in diabetes and other chronic disease self-management.
慢性疾病,如 2 型糖尿病,难以管理。这通常是由于患者自身有效糖尿病自我护理管理的失败以及医疗保健提供者(HCP)的干预策略和后续措施不足所致。本研究的目的是(i)使用社会营销调查方法来了解 2 型糖尿病患者和 HCP 之间在糖尿病相关主题上的认知差距,例如意识水平、社区资源的使用和满意度,以及自我管理的感知障碍;(ii)介绍一个公众意识运动/糖尿病管理示范项目(生命之城)在改变 HCP 和患者之间不一致观点方面的结果。该研究作为临床-社区项目“生命之城”的独立样本预-后准实验设计研究的一部分在阿拉巴马州伯明翰进行。在实施“生命之城”项目之前(2012 年第 1 波或 W1)和之后(2013 年第 2 波或 W2)进行了调查。HCP(n=50 和 48)和 2 型糖尿病和糖尿病前期患者(n=201 和 204)分别在 W1 和 W2 时回答了调查。在两个时间点,HCP 和患者都将糖尿病视为主要健康优先事项,并表示教育和信息是基于社区的项目(CBPs)最有价值的方面。尽管 86%的 HCP 报告推荐 CBPs 进行生活方式改变,并且他们的患者经常参加 CBPs(W1=70%;W2=82%),但较少的患者报告参与(W1=31%;W2=22%)。尽管很大一部分患者认为 CBPs 具有价值(W1=41%;W2=39%),但患者经常无法说出任何用于糖尿病预防或治疗的 CBPs(W1=45%;W2=59%)。相当一部分患者报告从家人/朋友/同事那里获得了“很多支持”(W1=54%;W2=64%;p<.05),但 HCP 认为他们的患者获得了“很多支持”的比例要低得多(W1=0%,W2=10%,p<.05)。患者和 HCP 独立报告称,患者缺乏动力是改善糖尿病护理的主要障碍之一。HCP 和患者就糖尿病自我管理的两个重要方面报告了不一致的观点:社区资源的使用和患者获得的社会支持程度。HCP 高估了患者对社区资源的使用,低估了患者的社会支持程度。跨学科干预措施可以解决患者缺乏动力的问题,并参与社会支持网络,从而改善有关社区资源在糖尿病和其他慢性疾病自我管理中的作用和益处的沟通和相互理解。