School-based diabetes care: A national survey of U.S. pediatric diabetes providers.

Objectives: To understand the practices, attitudes, and beliefs of type 1 diabetes (T1D) providers towards school-based diabetes care (SBDC), including counseling families and communicating with schools, and explore the barriers and facilitators which affect their support of SBDC. Research Design and Methods: We conducted a national survey of pediatric T1D providers about their perceived support of SBDC, including family counseling and school communication. We used descriptive statistics to analyze results and explored differences by practice size (<500, 500-999, and ≥1000 patients) and environment (academic vs non-academic). Results: A total of 149 providers completed the survey. Nearly all (95%) indicated SBDC was very important. Though most (63%) reported counseling families about SBDC multiple times per year, few (19%) spoke with school staff routinely, reporting that was a shared responsibility among different providers. Close to 90% agreed school feedback on T1D management plans would be helpful, yet only 31% routinely requested this input. Moderate to extremely significant barriers to SBDC communication included internal factors, such as staff resources (67%) and time (82%), and external factors, such as school nurse education needs (62%) and differing school district policies (70%). Individuals from large or academic practices reported more barriers in their knowledge of SBDC, including federal/state laws. Desired facilitators for SBDC included a designated school liaison (84%), electronic transmission for school forms (90%), and accessible school staff education (95%). Conclusions: Though providers universally agree that SBDC is important, there are multilevel internal (practice) and external (policy) barriers to facilitating a bidirectional relationship between schools and health teams.

Comparisons of school-day glycemia in different settings for children with type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring.

Objective: Using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), we examined patterns in glycemia during school hours for children with type 1 diabetes, exploring differences between school and non-school time. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of CGM metrics in children 7-12 years (n=217, diabetes duration 3.5±2.5 years, hemoglobin A1c 7.5±0.8%). Metrics were obtained for weekday school hours (8 AM to 3 PM) during four weeks in fall 2019. Two comparison settings included weekend (fall 2019) and weekday (spring 2020) data when children had transitioned to virtual school due to COVID-19. We used multilevel mixed models to examine factors associated with time in range (TIR) and compare glycemia between in-school, weekends, and virtual school. Results: Though CGM metrics were clinically similar across settings, TIR was statistically higher, and time above range (TAR), mean glucose, and standard deviation (SD) lower, for weekends and virtual school (p<0.001). Hour and setting exhibited a significant interaction for several metrics (p<0.001). TIR in-school improved from a mean of 40.9% at the start of the school day to 58.0% later in school, with a corresponding decrease in TAR. TIR decreased on weekends (60.8 to 50.7%) and virtual school (62.2 to 47.8%) during the same interval. Mean glucose exhibited a similar pattern, though there was little change in SD. Younger age (p=0.006), lower hemoglobin A1c (p<0.001), and insulin pump use (p=0.02) were associated with higher TIR in-school. Conclusion: Although TIR was higher for weekends and virtual school, glycemic metrics improve while in-school, possibly related to beneficial school day routines.

Cyber School Is a Marker of Youth with High-Risk Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the health characteristics of youth with diabetes in cyber school compared with peers with diabetes in traditional brick-and-mortar schools. STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-center cross-sectional study of youth with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in K-12 education during academic year 2017-2018. Youth enrolled in cyber school were matched with traditional school peers by age, sex, race, diagnosis, and diabetes duration. Comparisons included insurance status, hemoglobin A1c, treatment, coexisting conditions, screening, and healthcare use. RESULTS: Of 1694 participants, 5% (n = 87) were enrolled in cyber school. Youth enrolled in cyber school were predominantly white (89%), female (60%), adolescents (median 15.2 years) with type 1 diabetes (91%). Youth with type 2 diabetes were excluded from analyses owing to the small sample (n = 7). Public insurance was more common among youth enrolled in cyber school (P = .005). Youth in cyber school had higher mean hemoglobin A1c, 9.1 ± 1.8% (76 ± 20 mmol/mol) vs 8.3 ± 1.2% (67 ± 13 mmol/mol) (P = .003), lower insulin pump use (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.73), and more mental health conditions (OR, 4.48; 95% CI, 1.94-10.35) compared with peers in traditional schools. Youth in cyber school were less likely to have recommended vision (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75) and dental (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75) evaluations. The relationship between hemoglobin A1c and cyber school persisted after adjusting for insurance status, pump use, and mental health conditions (P = .02). Similar trends were observed for participants with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Youth with diabetes in cyber school may be a high-risk population. Understanding the potential impact of cyber school-related factors on health may encourage additional provider/system/school supports for these patients.

Modern diabetes devices in the school setting: Perspectives from school nurses.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences, practices, and attitudes of school nurses related to modern diabetes devices (insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and hybrid-closed loop systems). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 40 public school nurses caring for children in elementary and middle schools. Developed with stakeholder input, the interview questions explored experiences working with devices and communicating with the health care system. Deidentified transcripts were analyzed through an iterative process of coding to identify major themes. RESULTS: School nurses reported a range of educational backgrounds (58% undergraduate, 42% graduate), geographic settings (20% urban, 55% suburban, 25% rural), and years of experience (20% <5 years, 38%, 5-15 years, 42% >15 years). Four major themes emerged: (a) As devices become more common, school nurses must quickly develop new knowledge and skills yet have inconsistent training opportunities; (b) Enthusiasm for devices is tempered by concerns about implementation due to poor planning prior to the school year and potential disruptions by remote monitors; (c) Barriers exist to integrating devices into schools, including school/classroom policies, liability/privacy concerns, and variable staff engagement; and (d) Collaboration between school nurses and providers is limited; better communication may benefit children with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Devices are increasingly used by school-aged children. School nurses appreciate device potential but share structural and individual-level challenges. Guiding policy is needed as the technology progressively becomes standard of care. Enhanced training and collaboration with diabetes providers may help to optimize school-based management for children in the modern era.

Insights From the National Diabetes Education Program National Diabetes Survey: Opportunities for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

IN BRIEF Diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) provides the foundation to help people with diabetes (PWD) navigate the numerous self-management decisions and complex care activities they face daily and has been shown to improve outcomes. Without DSMES, PWD often lack the skills and knowledge necessary to handle the demands of managing this chronic disease. Understanding self-management behaviors and responses to DSMES is essential for improving DSMES processes and diabetes outcomes. This article provides the most recent findings from questions regarding self-management behaviors and DSMES practices obtained through the National Diabetes Education Program National Diabetes Survey. Insights and gaps in self-management behaviors and DSMES delivery are examined to identify challenges and offer opportunities for improvement.

Are children with type 1 diabetes safe at school? Examining parent perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: To describe parent perceptions of children's diabetes care at school including: availability of licensed health professionals; staff training; logistics of provision of care; and occurrence and treatment of hypo- and hyperglycemia; and to examine parents' perceptions of their children's safety and satisfaction in the school environment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A survey was completed by parents of children with type 1 diabetes from permissive (trained, non-medical school personnel permitted to provide diabetes care; N = 237) and non-permissive (only licensed health care professionals permitted to provide diabetes care; N = 198) states. RESULTS: Most parents reported that schools had nurses available for the school day; teachers and coaches should be trained; nurses, children, and parents frequently provided diabetes care; and hypo- and hyperglycemia occurred often. Parents in permissive states perceived children to be as safe and were as satisfied with care as parents in non-permissive states. CONCLUSIONS: Training non-medical staff will probably maximize safety of children with diabetes when a school nurse is not available.

Insights into the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Mobile Insulin Titration Application in Clinical Practice and Its Effects on Diabetes Outcomes.

Introduction: Insulin therapy is most effective if patients learn how to properly adjust insulin to achieve glycaemic targets. There is a need for methods and tools that can assist these processes in clinical practice. The purpose of this feasibility study was to evaluate an approach to support insulin dose adjustment in individual patients using a mobile titration application (app). Methods: A cohort of adults (N=36) with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycaemia who were starting basal insulin self-titration were trained by a diabetes care and education specialist to use a mobile titration app to guide adjusting insulin doses. Glycaemia, diabetes distress and patient and provider satisfaction were assessed during the first 3 months after initiating basal insulin titration using the mobile app. Results: Mean haemoglobin type A1c (HbA1c) was significantly reduced by an average of 2.1 ± 2.2% from baseline to 3 months (p<0.001). Diabetes distress significantly decreased from baseline to follow-up with scores going down (or improving) across all scales. Both patients and providers reported high levels of satisfaction and positive experiences. Conclusion: The model offers a promising solution to streamline insulin dosage adjustments to achieve specific clinical and self-management goals with high expectations for long-term benefits and warrants further investigation.

Emerging adults with type 1 diabetes: a comparison to peers without diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This longitudinal study compared emerging adults with and without type 1 diabetes on life path decisions, health behaviors, and psychological well-being during the transition out of high school. METHODS: Administered questionnaires during the senior year of high school and 1 year later to 117 emerging adults with diabetes and 122 emerging adults without diabetes. Comparisons were conducted with respect to health status, sex, and school status. RESULTS: Those with and without diabetes chose similar life paths and engaged in similar levels of risky behaviors, but disturbed sleep increased for males with diabetes only. Having diabetes was not associated with depressive symptoms, loneliness, or bulimic symptoms, but was associated with lower life satisfaction and lower life purpose over time. CONCLUSIONS: Emerging adults with and without diabetes fare similarly on most dimensions studied during the first year out of high school.

Implications of the School Day on Health Behaviors for Children With Type 1 Diabetes: A Survey of Parent Perspectives During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to survey parents of youth with type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic with school closures to better understand the implications of the school day on health care behaviors. METHODS: A cross-sectional, online survey was distributed to parents of youth with type 1 diabetes ≤19 years of age in a large, academic diabetes center. Questions encompassed perceived changes in management behaviors and plans for return to school. Subgroup analysis compared parent responses by child's age, reported stressors, and socioeconomic markers. RESULTS: Parents reported a worsening in their child's diabetes health behaviors during school closures compared to what they perceived during a regular school day before the pandemic. More than half of parents reported feeling that their child was unable to maintain a normal routine, with particular implications for snacking between meals, daily physical activity, and sleep habits. Families with adolescents or those experiencing multiple pandemic-related stressors reported greater challenges. In open-ended responses, families highlighted difficulty in balancing school, work, and diabetes care and expressed concerns about the mental health repercussions of school closures for their children. Nearly half of parents reported being at least moderately worried about return to school, whereas only a minority reported seeking guidance from their diabetes provider. CONCLUSIONS: Parent-reported disruptions of school-day routines frequently had adverse consequences for diabetes management in this population. These findings highlight the importance of a school-day routine for children with type 1 diabetes; during closures, families may benefit from mitigating strategies to maintain effective habits.

Effect of a Primary Care-Based Diabetes Education Model on Provider Referrals and Patient Participation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a primary care (PC)-based delivery model on diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) referrals and participation. Despite evidence that DSMES is a critical component of diabetes care, referrals and participation remain low. METHODS: PC practices were assigned to the intervention (n = 6) or usual care (n = 6). Intervention practices had direct access to a diabetes educator (DE) and applied patient-centered medical home elements to DSMES delivery. Usual care practices referred patients to traditional hospital-based outpatient DSMES programs. DSMES referrals and participation were examined for patients with diabetes, 18 to 75 years old, presenting to PC over 18 months (n = 4,894) and compared between groups. RESULTS: Compared to the usual care group, a higher percentage of patients in the intervention practices were referred to DSMES (18.4% vs 13.4%; P < .0001), and of those referred, a higher percentage of patients in the intervention practices participated in DSMES (34.9% vs 26.1%; P = .02). Patient-level factors predicting referrals were obesity (odds ratio [OR] = 1.6), higher A1C (OR = 1.4), female (OR = 1.3), and younger age (OR = 0.98). The only patient-level factor that predicted DSMES participation was lower A1C (OR = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the positive influence of a PC-based intervention on DSMES referral and participation. However, modest improvements in DSMES rates, even with targeted efforts to address reported barriers, raise questions as to what is truly needed to drive meaningful change.

Access to diabetes self-management education: results of national surveys of patients, educators, and physicians.

PURPOSE: To examine factors related to access to diabetes self-management education (DSME), including services delivered and sought; patient, physician, and program barriers to access; educator outreach and expansion efforts; and perceptions of alternative DSME delivery strategies. METHODS: Internet surveys were completed by 1169 adults with diabetes (661 with prior DSME, 508 with no prior DSME) from a national community survey panel, 1871 educators who were AADE members, and 629 physicians (212 diabetes specialists, 417 primary care practitioners) from a national physician survey panel. RESULTS: Physicians want patients to receive more self-management support, but some report that patients are told to do things with which the physician does not agree. Provider (physician and educator)-delivered DSME is more highly regarded among those who have received it than among those who have not received it. Physicians generally have positive perceptions of provider-delivered DSME, and educators see physicians as key to encouraging DSME use in patients. Some physicians are concerned about losing patients sent to DSME, and 11% of patients report changing physicians as a result of DSME. Most DSME programs have grown recently as a result of recruiting efforts and adding new programs/services; most programs plan more such efforts. Patients prefer traditional DSME sources/settings and are moderately accepting of media sources. CONCLUSIONS: Additional efforts are required to guarantee that all people with diabetes receive the DSME they need. This will require increased referral by physicians, increased follow-through by patients, and increased availability of DSME in forms that make it appealing to patients and physicians.

A Coordinated Population Health Approach to Diabetes Education in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this feasibility study was to determine the effectiveness of an insurer-based diabetes educator (DE)-driven intervention that relies on systematic restructuring of primary care (PC) linking DE services through population health, practice redesign, and coordinated care for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) identified as high risk. METHODS: Two DEs were introduced as members of PC teams and worked with practice-based care managers (PBCMs) to identify and refer DM patients considered at high risk, A1C >9%, DM-related emergency room visit or hospitalization, or reported barriers to care. Elements shown to ensure quality, including population management, diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES), and coordinated patient-centered team-based PC, were central to intervention. A1C, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and body mass index (BMI) were collected at baseline and outcomes were followed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after intervention. RESULTS: For patients who received intervention, A1C decreased on average 1.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.5) from 9.6% (81 mmol/mol) to 8.4% (68 mmol/mol) over 6 months and by 1.1% (95% CI, 0.7-1.5) from 9.2% (77 mmol/mol) to 8.1% (65 mmol/mol) over 12 months, indicating durable improvement in glycemic control. There was no significant change in BMI, and LDL improvement observed at 9 months was lost by 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Findings support the feasibility of a DE-driven intervention for patients with DM at high risk through a coordinated PC approach that improves glycemic control. The feasibility and clinical outcome of this model warrant consideration of a fresh role for DEs in the complex environment of value-based care.

Approaches to help people with diabetes overcome barriers for improved health outcomes.

Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions, and studies have shown that many patients do not reach optimal glycemic control. Evidence suggests that often there is a long lapse between treatment failure and therapy advancement. A better understanding of the pharmacotherapeutic treatment options, realistic goal-setting, and continued follow-up to support treatment adherence are crucial to improving diabetes care and outcomes. Many possible barriers prevent patients from achieving the desired level of glycemic control, eg, side effects of medications, psychosocial issues, and access to support services. Strategies to overcome these barriers will be presented. Pramlintide, an adjunct to insulin therapy, is the first antihyperglycemic agent to be approved for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes since insulin was developed. Educating patients about the dosing, administration, and side effects of pramlintide before adding it to insulin therapy may improve patient adherence and ultimately optimize treatment outcomes and success.

Multidisciplinary interventions: mapping new horizons in diabetes care.

More than 20 million people in the United States, or 7% of the population, have diabetes, with health care and work-related costs estimated to be $174 billion in 2007. Obesity constitutes one of the major driving factors behind this epidemic. Most drugs currently used to treat diabetes address the primary metabolic defects in type 2 diabetes mellitus, which are insulin resistance and pancreatic islet dysfunction. Incretin augmentation therapies, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors, restore glucose homeostasis by addressing some of the unmet needs in diabetes therapies related to alpha-cell dysfunction and chronic beta-cell dysfunction. This new group of drugs offers certain advantages because its use is characterized by a low incidence of hypoglycemia and the absence of weight gain. Moreover, the use of fixed-dose combinations of dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors with other oral antidiabetic agents seems very attractive to patients because of their reduced pill intake and minimized financial burden, which may improve adherence. An efficient strategy to slow down the epidemic of diabetes must include these emerging therapies and regimens, coupled with intensive patient education that includes information on treatment benefits and adverse effects, medication costs, and medication regimen complexity.

US ethnic group differences in self-management in the 2nd diabetes attitudes, wishes and needs (DAWN2) study.

AIMS: Understanding the relationship between ethnicity and self-management is important due to disparities in healthcare access, utilization, and outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes from different ethnic groups in the US. METHODS: Self-reports of self-management and interest in improving self-management from US people with diabetes (PWD) in the 2nd Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study, a multinational, multi-stakeholder survey, were analyzed, including 447 non-Hispanic White, 241 African American, 194 Hispanic American, and 173 Chinese American PWD (>18 years). RESULTS: Overall, self-management behavior was highest for medication taking and lowest for physical activity. Non-Hispanic Whites had lowest physical activity and highest adherence to insulin therapy. Chinese Americans had lowest foot care and highest healthy eating. Overall, interest was highest for improving healthy eating and physical activity. Chinese Americans and Hispanic Americans were more interested than non-Hispanic Whites in improving most self-management behaviors. Chinese Americans were more interested than African Americans in improving most self-management behaviors. Healthcare providers telling PWD that their A1c needs improvement was associated with lower self-rated glucose control, which was associated with higher PWD interest in improving self-management behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes care providers should use patient-centered approaches and consider ethnicity in tailoring self-management support.

The National Diabetes Education Program at 20 Years: Lessons Learned and Plans for the Future.

The National Diabetes Education Program (NDEP) was established to translate findings from diabetes research studies into clinical and public health practice. Over 20 years, NDEP has built a program with partnership engagement that includes science-based resources for multiple population and stakeholder audiences. Throughout its history, NDEP has developed strategies and messages based on communication research and relied on established behavior change models from health education, communication, and social marketing. The program's success in continuing to engage diverse partners after 20 years has led to time-proven and high-quality resources that have been sustained. Today, NDEP maintains a national repository of diabetes education tools and resources that are high quality, science- and audience-based, culturally and linguistically appropriate, and available free of charge to a wide variety of audiences. This review looks back and describes NDEP's evolution in transforming and communicating diabetes management and type 2 diabetes prevention strategies through partnerships, campaigns, educational resources, and tools and identifies future opportunities and plans.

Developing and validating a diabetes database in a large health system.

BACKGROUND: One component of clinical information systems is a registry of patients. Registries allow providers to identify gaps in care at the population level. Registries also allow for rapid cycle continuous quality improvement, targeted practice change and improved outcomes. Most registries are built based on membership with an insurer or other selection criteria. Little, if any data exist on registries representing demographically heterogeneous populations. METHODS: Administrative and clinical data for the period 1/1/2000-12/30/03 were examined. In total, 46,082,941 lab reports, 233,292,544 medical records, and 9,351,415 medical record abstracts, representing approximately 2 million unique patients were searched. The diabetes source population was identified by presence of any one of the following criteria: ICD-9 code 250 (diabetes) for inpatient, emergency room or outpatient visits; any hemoglobin A1c result; blood glucose >200mg/dl; or diabetes medication. A diagnosis of diabetes was verified by trained chart reviewers on a sample of patients. Single indicators and combinations were examined to determine optimal identification of these cases. RESULTS: In two separate validation studies, using two or more indicators or outpatient diagnosis maximized positive predictive value (PPV) (96 and 97%) and sensitivity (99 and 100%) and identified 55,807 individuals. When all patients with a single indicator of outpatient diagnosis (which had the highest single PPV of 94 and 95%) were included together with those having >or=2 indicators, the final sample size was 65,725. CONCLUSION: Two or more indicators or an out-patient-diagnosis identifies a sizeable and unselective diabetes database which can be used to track processes and outcomes.