The attitude of healthcare professionals plays an important role in the uptake of diabetes self-management education: analysis of the Barriers to Uptake of Type 1 Diabetes Education (BUD1E) study survey.

AIM: To explore reasons for the poor uptake of accredited diabetes self-management education (DSME) in adults with Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The study was set in an urban population in South London, UK. A cross sectional survey gathered demographic, diabetes service-use data, psychological scores and reasons for non-attendance at locally-available DSME. In addition, 56 healthcare professionals were surveyed. RESULTS: Responses to surveys were returned by 496 adults with Type 1 diabetes (33% response rate), of whom 263 had attended DSME (53%). Multivariable analysis adjusted for significant variables identified four key variables influencing attendance. Non-attendance was associated with men (OR 0.55 CI 0.37-0.84, p = 0.005), lower educational attainment (OR 0.45 CI 0.28-0.73, p = 0.001), higher glycated haemoglobin (OR 1.74 CI 1.03-2.94, p = 0.04) and healthcare professional encouragement to attend (OR 1.7 CI 1.28-2.3, p = 0.001). The most frequently reported barriers to attendance were work (37%) and time (14%) commitments. Only 49% of healthcare professionals (HCPs) correctly identified the most likely barriers. Those HCPs who had observed courses believed more in their efficacy, with higher uptake within their clinic population. CONCLUSIONS: Social determinants of health, particularly educational attainment and gender, increase health inequalities by influencing decisions to attend evidence-based education courses. Healthcare professional communication is paramount to encourage attendance, and observation of a course may facilitate this.

Patient explanations for non-attendance at structured diabetes education sessions for newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study.

AIM: To determine the reasons for non-attendance at structured education sessions among people with a recent diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to elicit the main themes explaining non-attendance. A thematic framework method was applied to analyse the data. People who had not attended structured education were recruited from a population cohort of newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes from South London (the South London Diabetes cohort study), UK. RESULTS: A sample of 30 people was interviewed. Three main themes emerged from the qualitative data explaining non-attendance at structured education: (1) lack of information/perceived benefit of the programme (e.g. not being informed about the course by their health professional); (2) unmet personal preferences (e.g. parking, timing); and (3) shame and stigma of diabetes (e.g. not wishing to tell others of diabetes diagnosis). CONCLUSION: This is the first time that reasons for non-attendance have been explored in depth among people who have newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes. Novel reasons identified included non-attendance because of shame and stigma of diabetes. To improve uptake at structured education we need to: consider how health professionals in primary care communicate with their patients on the subject of structured diabetes education; offer alternatives to the traditional group education format; and understand that diabetes is associated with health-related stigma, which may affect participation.

Substantial reductions in the number of diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycaemia episodes requiring emergency treatment lead to reduced costs after structured education in adults with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To determine the impact of structured education promoting flexible intensive insulin therapy on rates of diabetic ketoacidosis, and the costs associated with emergency treatment for severe hypoglycaemia and ketoacidosis in adults with Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Using the Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating research database we compared the rates of ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycaemia during the 12 months preceding Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating training with the rates during the 12-month follow-up after this training. Emergency treatment costs were calculated for associated paramedic assistance, Accident and Emergency department attendance and hospital admissions. RESULTS: Complete baseline and 1-year data were available for 939/1651 participants (57%). The risk of ketoacidosis in the 12 months after Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating training, compared with that before training, was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.23 to 0.65, P < 0.001), reduced from 0.07 to 0.03 episodes/patient/year. For every 1 mmol/mol unit increase in HbA1c concentration, the risk of a ketoacidosis episode increased by 6% (95% CI: 5 to 7%; 88% for a 1% increase), and for each 5-year increase in diabetes duration, the relative risk reduced by 20% (95% CI: 19 to 22%). The number of emergency treatments decreased for ketoacidosis (P < 0.001), and also for severe hypoglycaemia, including paramedic assistance (P < 0.001), Accident and Emergency department attendance (P = 0.029) and hospital admission (P = 0.001). In the study cohort, the combined cost of emergency treatment for ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycaemia fell by 64%, from £119,470 to £42,948. CONCLUSIONS: Structured training in flexible intensive insulin therapy is associated with a 61% reduction in the risk of ketoacidosis and with 64% lower emergency treatment costs for ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycaemia.

Hypoglycaemia in Type 2 diabetes.

The primary cause of hypoglycaemia in Type 2 diabetes is diabetes medication-in particular, those which raise insulin levels independently of blood glucose, such as sulphonylureas (SUs) and exogenous insulin. The risk of hypoglycaemia is increased in older patients, those with longer diabetes duration, lesser insulin reserve and perhaps in the drive for strict glycaemic control. Differing definitions, data collection methods, drug type/regimen and patient populations make comparing rates of hypoglycaemia difficult. It is clear that patients taking insulin have the highest rates of self-reported severe hypoglycaemia (25% in patients who have been taking insulin for > 5 years). SUs are associated with significantly lower rates of severe hypoglycaemia. However, large numbers of patients take SUs in the UK, and it is estimated that each year > 5000 patients will experience a severe event caused by their SU therapy which will require emergency intervention. Hypoglycaemia has substantial clinical impact, in terms of mortality, morbidity and quality of life. The cost implications of severe episodes-both direct hospital costs and indirect costs-are considerable: it is estimated that each hospital admission for severe hypoglycaemia costs around pound1000. Hypoglycaemia and fear of hypoglycaemia limit the ability of current diabetes medications to achieve and maintain optimal levels of glycaemic control. Newer therapies, which focus on the incretin axis, may carry a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. Their use, and more prudent use of older therapies with low risk of hypoglycaemia, may help patients achieve improved glucose control for longer, and reduce the risk of diabetic complications.

Results and cost analysis of distal [crural/pedal] arterial revascularisation for limb salvage in diabetic and non-diabetic patients.

In order to compare the outcome and costs of femorodistal grafting in diabetic and nondiabetic patients presenting with critical limb ischaemia we analysed a consecutive series of 109 femorodistal bypasses, 38 (35%) performed on people with diabetes and 71 (65%) on non-diabetic patients. The same aggressive revascularization policy was used in both groups with the decision to operate based on the presence of a calf or foot vessel on preoperative intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (IADSA). Data were collected prospectively and the median follow-up was 15.4 months (range 0 to 42 months). There were no significant differences in 30-day (5.3% vs 4.2%) and in-hospital mortality (13.2% vs 14.1%) between the two groups. Life table curves at 3 years in diabetic and non-diabetic patients showed 48% vs 60% survival, 76% vs 72% knee salvage, 45% vs 56% limb salvage, and 38% vs 47% secondary patency. Although there was a trend for diabetic patients to perform less well, there was no statistically significant difference in these outcome measures. In cost comparison the only significant difference was found in the total hospital cost, which was Pounds 9181 in diabetic, compared to Pounds 6350 in nondiabetic patients (p = 0.026, Mann-Whitney). However, this cost was significantly less than that of primary amputation in either group (Pounds 15500 and Pounds 12040, respectively). Femorodistal reconstruction in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, whenever feasible, is a cheaper option than primary amputation, even though vascular surgery may be more expensive in people with diabetes.