Health care effects and medical benefits of a smartphone-based diabetes self-management application: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management is a mainstay of diabetes care, but the implementation of self-management regimens into daily life is complex and often results in discouragement and distress. Modern approaches such as smartphone-based self-management applications are therefore needed to support people with diabetes. Since reimbursability would increase the availability of such digital applications to people with diabetes, we designed a study that meets all scientific and methodological requirements set by the German Digital Healthcare Act to allow reimbursement for a specific application (mySugr PRO). Here, we report the protocol of this study that aims at evaluating the efficacy of the digital self-management application with regard to patient-reported outcomes and medical benefits. METHODS/DESIGN: This multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, controlled trial will evaluate the health care effects and medical benefits of mySugr PRO. A total of 466 people with diabetes will be randomly allocated (2:1 randomization) to the interventional group (n = 311) that will use the digital self-management application during the 12-week study period or the control group (n = 155; no usage of the application). Baseline and follow-up examinations will assess diabetes distress as the primary endpoint as well as empowerment, HbA1c, blood glucose data, self-management, general well-being, and treatment satisfaction as secondary endpoints. Statistical analyses will use an intention-to-treat procedure (using multiple imputation for missing values) as well as a per-protocol approach for sensitivity analysis. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this study will be one of the largest diabetes-specific evaluations of a digital health application supporting people with diabetes in their diabetes self-management that follow the requirements of the German Digital Healthcare Act. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00022923 . Registered on 22 October 2020.

Trends in diabetes self-management education: where are we coming from and where are we going? A narrative review.

AIMS: To summarize the history, development and efficacy of diabetes self-management education on glycaemic control and mental health in adults and children or adolescents with type 1 diabetes and people with type 2 diabetes. A further aim was to review the status of implementation of diabetes self-management education into routine care and outline current gaps in implementation and research. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Google scholar for German- and English-language articles regarding diabetes self-management education, glycaemic control and mental health, and restricted this search to meta-analyses. RESULTS: Diabetes education has evolved from a compliance- and knowledge-oriented approach to an empowerment- and self-management-oriented approach. Diabetes self-management education seems to have a greater impact on glycaemic outcomes than on mental health outcomes, but the latter are rarely assessed. Technological development and digitalization can provide chances and challenges for diabetes self-management education. Digital solutions show promising results and great potential for improving the efficacy of diabetes self-management education further and providing ongoing support. The implementation of diabetes self-management education into routine clinical care frequently remains a challenge. CONCLUSION: Diabetes self-management education has been acknowledged as an essential part of diabetes therapy; however, current gaps regarding the efficacy of diabetes self-management education on mental health, and the need for education on the use of diabetes technology, are future avenues for research.

The effect of an education programme (MEDIAS 2 BSC) of non-intensive insulin treatment regimens for people with Type 2 diabetes: a randomized, multi-centre trial.

AIMS: A self-management oriented education programme (MEDIAS 2 BSC) for people with Type 2 diabetes who are on a non-intensive insulin treatment regimen was developed. In a randomized, multi-centre trial, the effect of MEDIAS 2 BSC was compared with an established education programme that acted as a control group. METHODS: The primary outcome was the impact of MEDIAS 2 BSC on glycaemic control. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemia unawareness, diabetes-related distress, diabetes knowledge, quality of life and self-care behaviour. RESULTS: In total, 182 participants were randomized to the control group or MEDIAS 2 BSC [median age 64.0 (interquartile range 58.0-68.5) vs. 63.5 (57.0-70.0) years; HbA1c 62.8 ± 12.7 mmol/mol vs. 63.7 ± 14.0 mmol/mol; 7.9% ± 1.2% vs. 8.0% ± 1.3%]. After a 6-month follow-up, there was a mean decrease in HbA1c of 3.5 mmol/mol (0.32%) in the control group and 6.7 mmol/mol (0.61%) in MEDIAS 2 BSC. After adjusting for baseline differences and study centre, the mean difference between the groups was -3.3 mmol/mol [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.54 to -5.90 mmol/mol] [-0.30% (95% CI -0.05 to -0.54)] in favour of MEDIAS 2 BSC (P = 0.018). There were no increases in severe hypoglycaemia or hypoglycaemia unawareness. The education programmes had no significant effects on psychosocial outcome variables. CONCLUSION: MEDIAS 2 BSC was more effective in lowering HbA1c than the control condition. MEDIAS 2 BSC is a safe educational tool that improves glycaemic control without increasing the risk for hypoglycaemia. (Clinical Trials Registry No; NCT 02748239).

Assessment of diabetes acceptance can help identify patients with ineffective diabetes self-care and poor diabetes control.

AIMS: To estimate the associations between insufficient diabetes acceptance and relevant diabetes outcomes. METHODS: A total of 320 patients completed questionnaires on diabetes non-acceptance (the Acceptance and Action Diabetes Questionnaire), diabetes distress (the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale), depressive mood (the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), coping with illness (the Freiburg Questionnaire of Coping with Illness), self-care activities (the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Measure) and quality of life (the Short Form-36 Health Questionnaire). A six-item version of the Acceptance and Action Diabetes Questionnaire showing good reliability and validity was established, and the associations between insufficient acceptance and clinical outcomes were estimated. RESULTS: Higher diabetes non-acceptance correlated significantly with less active coping (-0.37), reduced self-care (-0.43) and higher HbA1c levels (0.31), higher diabetes distress (0.53) and more depressive symptoms (0.36). Correlations of diabetes non-acceptance with diabetes self-care/glycaemic control were significantly higher than were those of depressive mood or diabetes distress with these criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Low diabetes acceptance is associated with impaired self-care and glycaemic control. Assessment of diabetes acceptance may facilitate the detection of patients at high risk and may present an essential target for treatments to improve diabetes control that is more relevant than elevated depressive mood or diabetes distress.

Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs second study (DAWN2™): cross-national comparisons on barriers and resources for optimal care--healthcare professional perspective.

AIMS: The second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study sought cross-national comparisons of perceptions on healthcare provision for benchmarking and sharing of clinical practices to improve diabetes care. METHODS: In total, 4785 healthcare professionals caring for people with diabetes across 17 countries participated in an online survey designed to assess diabetes healthcare provision, self-management and training. RESULTS: Between 61.4 and 92.9% of healthcare professionals felt that people with diabetes needed to improve various self-management activities; glucose monitoring (range, 29.3-92.1%) had the biggest country difference, with a between-country variance of 20%. The need for a major improvement in diabetes self-management education was reported by 60% (26.4-81.4%) of healthcare professionals, with a 12% between-country variance. Provision of diabetes services differed among countries, with many healthcare professionals indicating that major improvements were needed across a range of areas, including healthcare organization [30.6% (7.4-67.1%)], resources for diabetes prevention [78.8% (60.4-90.5%)], earlier diagnosis and treatment [67.9% (45.0-85.5%)], communication between team members and people with diabetes [56.1% (22.3-85.4%)], specialist nurse availability [63.8% (27.9-90.7%)] and psychological support [62.7% (40.6-79.6%)]. In some countries, up to one third of healthcare professionals reported not having received any formal diabetes training. Societal discrimination against people with diabetes was reported by 32.8% (11.4-79.6%) of participants. CONCLUSIONS: This survey has highlighted concerns of healthcare professionals relating to diabetes healthcare provision, self-management and training. Identifying between-country differences in several areas will allow benchmarking and sharing of clinical practices.

Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs second study (DAWN2™): cross-national benchmarking indicators for family members living with people with diabetes.

AIMS: The second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study examined the experiences of family members of people with diabetes for benchmarking and identifying unmet needs or areas for improvement to assist family members and those with diabetes to effectively self-manage. METHODS: In total, 2057 family members of people with diabetes participated in an online, telephone or in-person survey designed to assess the impact of diabetes on family life, family support for people with diabetes and educational and community support. RESULTS: Supporting a relative with diabetes was perceived as a burden by 35.3% (range across countries 10.6-61.7%) of respondents. Over half of respondents [51.4% (22.5-76.0%)] rated their quality of life as 'good' or 'very good'. However, distress about the person with diabetes was high, with 61.3% (31.5-86.4%) worried about hypoglycaemia. The impact of diabetes on aspects of life was felt by 51.8% (46.9-58.6%). The greatest negative effect was on emotional well-being [44.6% (31.8-63.0%)], although depression was less common [11.6% (4.2-20.0%)]. Many respondents did not know how to help the person with diabetes [37.1% (17.5-53.0%)] and wanted to be more involved in their care [39.4% (15.5-61.7%)]. Participation in diabetes educational programmes was low [23.1% (9.4-43.3%)], although most of those who participated found them helpful [72.1% (42.1-90.3%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes has a negative impact on family members of people with diabetes. DAWN2 provides benchmarking indicators of family members' psychosocial needs that will help identify the support required for, and from, them to improve the lives of people with diabetes and their families.

Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs second study (DAWN2™): cross-national benchmarking of diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes for people with diabetes.

AIMS: The second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study aimed to assess psychosocial outcomes in people with diabetes across countries for benchmarking. METHODS: Surveys included new and adapted questions from validated questionnaires that assess health-related quality of life, self-management, attitudes/beliefs, social support and priorities for improving diabetes care. Questionnaires were conducted online, by telephone or in person. RESULTS: Participants were 8596 adults with diabetes across 17 countries. There were significant between-country differences for all benchmarking indicators; no one country's outcomes were consistently better or worse than others. The proportion with likely depression [WHO-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5) score ≤ 28] was 13.8% (country range 6.5-24.1%). Diabetes-related distress [Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale 5 (PAID-5) score ≥ 40] was reported by 44.6% of participants (17.2-67.6%). Overall quality of life was rated 'poor' or 'very poor' by 12.2% of participants (7.6-26.1%). Diabetes had a negative impact on all aspects investigated, ranging from 20.5% on relationship with family/friends to 62.2% on physical health. Approximately 40% of participants (18.6-64.9%) reported that their medication interfered with their ability to live a normal life. The availability of person-centred chronic illness care and support for active involvement was rated as low. Following self-care advice for medication and diet was most common, and least common for glucose monitoring and foot examination, with marked country variation. Only 48.8% of respondents had participated in diabetes educational programmes/activities to help manage their diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-national benchmarking using psychometrically validated indicators can help identify areas for improvement and best practices to drive changes that improve outcomes for people with diabetes.

Take action to prevent diabetes--the IMAGE toolkit for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in Europe.

When we ask people what they value most, health is usually top of the list. While effective care is available for many chronic diseases, the fact remains that for the patient, the tax payer and the whole of society: prevention is better than cure. Diabetes and its complications are a serious threat to the survival and well-being of an increasing number of people. It is predicted that one in ten Europeans aged 20-79 will have developed diabetes by 2030. Once a disease of old age, diabetes is now common among adults of all ages and is beginning to affect adolescents and even children. Diabetes accounts for up to 18 % of total healthcare expenditure in Europe. The good news is that diabetes is preventable. Compelling evidence shows that the onset of diabetes can be prevented or delayed greatly in individuals at high risk (people with impaired glucose regulation). Clinical research has shown a reduction in risk of developing diabetes of over 50 % following relatively modest changes in lifestyle that include adopting a healthy diet, increasing physical activity, and maintaining a healthy body weight. These results have since been reproduced in real-world prevention programmes. Even a delay of a few years in the progression to diabetes is expected to reduce diabetes-related complications, such as heart, kidney and eye disease and, consequently, to reduce the cost to society. A comprehensive approach to diabetes prevention should combine population based primary prevention with programmes targeted at those who are at high risk. This approach should take account of the local circumstances and diversity within modern society (e.g. social inequalities). The challenge goes beyond the healthcare system. We need to encourage collaboration across many different sectors: education providers, non-governmental organisations, the food industry, the media, urban planners and politicians all have a very important role to play. Small changes in lifestyle will bring big changes in health. Through joint efforts, more people will be reached. The time to act is now.

How to screen for depression and emotional problems in patients with diabetes: comparison of screening characteristics of depression questionnaires, measurement of diabetes-specific emotional problems and standard clinical assessment.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We compared the screening performance of different measures of depression: the standard clinical assessment (SCA); the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); the Center of Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D); and the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire, which assesses diabetes-specific distress. We also studied the ability of these measures to detect diabetes-related distress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 376 diabetic patients (37.2% type 1; 23.9% type 2 without insulin treatment, 38.8% type 2 with insulin) completed the BDI and CES-D; patients who screened positive participated in a diagnostic interview, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Also, all patients completed the PAID questionnaire. Results of the SCA that related to depression diagnosis were reviewed to correct for false negative screening results. RESULTS: The prevalence of clinical depression was 14.1%, with an additional 18.9% of patients receiving a diagnosis of subclinical depression. Sensitivity for clinical depression in SCA (56%) was moderate, whereas BDI, CES-D and the PAID questionnaire showed satisfactory sensitivity (87, 79 and 81%, respectively). For subclinical depression, the sensitivity of the PAID questionnaire (79%) was sufficient, whereas that of SCA (25%) was poor. All methods showed low sensitivity for the detection of diabetes-specific emotional problems (SCA 19%, CIDI 34%, BDI 60%, CES-D 49%). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The screening performance of SCA for clinical and subclinical depression was modest. Additional screening for depression using the PAID or another depression questionnaire seems reasonable. The ability of depression screening measures to identify diabetes-related distress is modest, suggesting that the PAID questionnaire could be useful when screening diabetic patients for both depression and emotional problems.

Assessment of hypoglycaemia awareness using continuous glucose monitoring.

AIMS: To investigate the possibility of assessing hypoglycaemia awareness in patients with Type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring. METHODS: Twenty patients with Type 1 diabetes were investigated. Ten patients with Type 1 diabetes and strongly impaired hypoglycaemia awareness were compared with 10 patients with intact hypoglycaemia awareness regarding quality of hypoglycaemia perception (number of undetected hypoglycaemic episodes per 24 h, glucose level < 3.3 mmol/l). Hypoglycaemia detection was assessed using the event function of the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS; Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA, USA). Patients were instructed to enter an event upon suspecting being hypoglycaemic. RESULTS: Satisfactory CGMS performance could be achieved [mean r = 0.893 between calibration measurements and CGMS data, mean absolute difference (MAD) = 20.6%], although artefacts were observable and had to be controlled. Hypoglycaemia unaware patients showed a significantly higher total number of hypoglycaemic episodes (P < 0.05), number of undetected hypoglycaemic episodes (P < 0.01), and mean glucose levels (P < 0.05). Even in aware patients, undetected hypoglycaemia was observable. No significant differences regarding occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia were observable. CONCLUSIONS: The possibility of direct assessment of hypoglycaemia awareness using continuous glucose monitoring was demonstrated. Its application in clinical practice could be of use for assessing hypoglycaemia perception and evaluating the impact of treatment changes on hypoglycaemia awareness.