Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA.
J Prim Care Community Health. 2020 Jan-Dec;11:2150132720967232. doi: 10.1177/2150132720967232.
Although evidence shows that diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) is an effective tool to help individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) improve their health outcomes, there remains a large number of individuals not attending DSMES. Understanding how frequently patients receive referrals to DSMES and the number of DSMES hours they receive is important to determine, as well as patients' health outcomes of utilizing DSMES. This will help us understand patterns of utilization and the outcomes that occur when such a valuable resource is utilized.
Secondary data analysis was conducted of patient electronic medical records at a primary healthcare federally qualified clinic and 2 area hospitals. We identified 105 adult patients with a new T2DM diagnosis with at least 2 A1c lab results 3 to 12 months apart during the study period.
Only 53.5% were referred to DSMES. Out of those who were referred, 66% received no DSMES, 17% received 1-hour assessment, 4% received partial DSMES, and 13% received 8 or more hours. Linear regression of percent change in A1c and number of DSMES hours received, revealed that receiving 1 ( = .001) or 8 or more hours of DSMES ( = .022) had a significant negative relationship with the percent difference in A1c compared to the group who received no DSMES. Patients who had an hour of assessment had a similar percent reduction in A1c to those who had partial DSMES.
Referral rates and enrollment in DSMES remain low. Those who enrolled often dropped out after the one-hour assessment session. Results suggest making the one-hour assessment session more educationally comprehensive or longer to retain patients. Improving the DSMES referral process and further investing physicians' decisions on whether to refer or not refer patients to DSMES are key for future studies.
尽管有证据表明,糖尿病自我管理教育和支持(DSMES)是帮助 2 型糖尿病(T2DM)患者改善健康结果的有效工具,但仍有大量患者未接受 DSMES。了解患者接受 DSMES 转介的频率以及他们接受的 DSMES 小时数,对于确定患者利用 DSMES 的健康结果非常重要。这将帮助我们了解利用模式和利用这种宝贵资源时发生的结果。
对一家初级保健联邦合格诊所和 2 家地区医院的患者电子病历进行了二次数据分析。我们确定了在研究期间至少有 2 次 A1c 实验室结果相隔 3 至 12 个月的 105 名新诊断为 T2DM 的成年患者。
只有 53.5%的患者被转介到 DSMES。在被转介的患者中,66%没有接受 DSMES,17%接受了 1 小时评估,4%接受了部分 DSMES,13%接受了 8 小时或更多小时的 DSMES。A1c 百分变化和接受 DSMES 小时数的线性回归显示,与未接受 DSMES 的组相比,接受 1 小时( = .001)或 8 小时或更多小时的 DSMES( = .022)与 A1c 的百分差呈显著负相关。接受评估的患者的 A1c 百分比降低与接受部分 DSMES 的患者相似。
转介率和 DSMES 的参与率仍然很低。那些入组的患者往往在 1 小时评估会议后退出。结果表明,为了留住患者,应使 1 小时评估会议更具教育性和更长时间。改善 DSMES 转介流程,并进一步投资医生是否转介患者接受 DSMES 的决策,是未来研究的关键。