Utilisation, access and recommendations regarding technologies for people living with type 1 diabetes: consensus statement of the ADS/ADEA/APEG/ADIPS Working Group.

INTRODUCTION: Type 1 diabetes presents significant challenges for optimal management. Despite intensive glycaemic control being the standard of care for several decades, glycaemic targets are infrequently achieved and the burden of complications remains high. Therefore, the advancement of diabetes management technologies has a major role in reducing the clinical and economic impact of the disease on people living with type 1 diabetes and on health care systems. However, a national framework is needed to ensure equitable and sustainable implementation of these technologies as part of holistic care. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: This consensus statement considers technologies for insulin delivery, glucose sensing and insulin dose advice that are commercially available in Australia. While international position statements have provided recommendations for technology implementation, the ADS/ADEA/APEG/ADIPS Working Group believes that focus needs to shift from strict trial-based glycaemic criteria towards engagement and individualised management goals that consider the broad spectrum of benefits offered by technologies. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: This Australian consensus statement from peak national bodies for the management of diabetes across the lifespan outlines a national framework for the optimal implementation of technologies for people with type 1 diabetes. The Working Group highlights issues regarding equity of access to technologies and services, scope of clinical practice, credentialling and accreditation requirements, regulatory issues with "do-it-yourself" technology, national benchmarking, safety reporting, and ongoing patient advocacy.

Glycemic control and type 1 diabetes: the differential impact of model of care and income.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of model of care (specialist care vs. shared care), and income, on glycemic control in a sample of young people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: A total of 158 children and young people with type 1 diabetes, aged 8-19 yr, and their families, were recruited independent of their source of care as part of a longitudinal, cross-sectional exploratory study. At enrollment, participants completed a series of questionnaires and underwent a structured interview to gather data regarding the type of specialist and healthcare services attended, as well as demographic, healthcare, and self-care information. Capillary sample was taken for HbA1c determination. RESULTS: The mean HbA1c for the group as a whole was 8.6 ± 1.4%. There was no effect for model of care on glycemic control. However, young people living in households with a family income of less than AUS$83,000 (US$73,500) per year had a significantly higher mean HbA1c than their counterparts reporting a higher household income (8.8 ± 1.4% vs. 8.3 ± 1.1%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Although no differences were found with respect to the short-term impact of specialist vs. shared care, it is evident that more support is required to improve glycemic control in this sample of young people where the mean level of HbA1c was significantly higher than target. Further research is also indicated to determine the relationship between glycemic control and socioeconomic status.

Social disadvantage: its impact on the use of Medicare services related to diabetes in NSW.

OBJECTIVE: To use Medicare data to examine the impact of social disadvantage on the use of health services related to diabetes. METHOD: Information on number of diabetic individuals and number of services for select Medicare item codes were retrieved by New South Wales postcodes using a Health Insurance Commission data file. The postcodes were graded into quintiles of social disadvantage. RESULTS: People at most social disadvantage were significantly less likely to be under the care of a general practitioner (adjusted OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.40-0.41) or consultant physician (adjusted OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.48-0.53), despite this group having the highest prevalence of diabetes. The difference in attendance to other specialists was less marked but nevertheless significant (adjusted OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.68-0.75). Once under a doctor's care, patients at most disadvantage were slightly more likely to undergo HbA1c or microalbuminuria estimation (adjusted OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00-1.10 and adjusted OR 1.22; 95% CI 1.12-1.33, respectively) but were less likely to undergo lipid or HDL cholesterol estimation (adjusted OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.48-0.53 and adjusted OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.79-0.90, respectively). CONCLUSION: While access to medical care is decreased for people at most social disadvantage, once under a doctor's care they receive a level of monitoring that is relatively equal to that provided to people less disadvantaged. IMPLICATION: Strategies are required to ensure equal access to medical services for all persons with diabetes, especially for persons who are at most social and medical disadvantage.