RESUMO
Background/Aim: Hypomagnesaemia has been shown to have a significant impact on both glycaemic control and diabetes complications in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. This study aims to assess the prevalence of hypomagnesaemia in T2DM patients and find the association between serum magnesium levels and outcomes relevant to glycaemic control and diabetic complications in primary care unit. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted and included 373 patients (222 males and 151 females) from primary care unit. Serum magnesium levels were measured by the colorimetric endpoint method using the Cobas C501 system. Hypomagnesaemia was determined to be a serum magnesium level <1.6 mg/dL. In addition, the following data was also obtained: patients' characteristics, anthropometric measurements, smoking status, HbA1c, comorbidities and therapeutic management. Results: Patients' mean age was 56.2 ± 10.8 years, 24.6% were smokers, and most were overweight or obese. About 60% have a history of hypertension, and the majority have had diabetes for more than 10 years. Their mean HbA1c level was 8.5 ± 2%. The prevalence of hypomagnesaemia was 11% (95% CI: 8%-14.6%). It was found to be significantly higher among females (adjusted OR: 2.7, 95%CI: 1.2%-5.8%), patients with HbA1c ≥8% (adjusted OR: 2.4, 95%CI: 1.1%-5.5%) and patients with a history of diabetic retinopathy (adjusted OR: 2.7, 95%CI: 1.1%-7.1%). Conclusion: The study showed that hypomagnesaemia is more prevalent in females and is associated with diabetic retinopathy and poor glycaemic control. Having a sufficient magnesium level may be associated with better glycaemic control and a reduced occurrence of complications.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) screening among Palestinian diabetic patients is limited. To improve the care of our patients, we explored the barriers to DR screening with a qualitative study. METHODS: Three focus groups were conducted in the northern West Bank. Patients noncompliant with DR screening were recruited from Primary Health Care clinics. Questions were adapted from similar published studies. Informed consent was obtained and group discussions were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes by three researchers. RESULTS: Most patients reported financial barriers including the costs of the exam and additional treatments, and transportation to the referral clinic. System related issues were the difficulty of getting appointments and long wait times due to inadequate numbers of ophthalmologists or screening facilities, and physicians failing to recommend screening. Personal concerns related to patients having other priorities, fears about the results, and the negative experiences of family members. Finally, cultural aspects included the stigma of wearing glasses and not doing a test for a condition without symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to completing retinopathy screening are multidimensional with financial, personal, educational, health system, and cultural factors. These should be taken into consideration by policy makers in order to increase the uptake and quality of service.