Factors associated with glycaemic control in adults with Type 1 diabetes: a registry-based analysis including 7601 individuals from 34 centres in Norway.

AIMS: To use data from the Norwegian Diabetes Registry for Adults and Statistics Norway to assess factors associated with glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The analyses included all individuals aged ≥18 years who had a type 1 diabetes duration of >2 years and a recorded value in the registry between 2013 and 2015 (n=7601). Predicted mean HbA1c levels for subgroups of participants were assessed using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Young age (18-25 years), low education levels, smoking, living alone, exercising infrequently, monitoring glucose infrequently, high insulin requirements, low frequency of symptomatic hypoglycaemia, history of ketoacidosis and a BMI <18.5 kg/m2 were associated with a 2-12-mmol/mol (0.2-1.1%) higher HbA1c level. Those with 10-15 years of diabetes duration had 5-mmol/mol (0.5%) higher HbA1c level than those who had a diabetes duration of 2-5 years. Sex, participation (ever) in a diabetes education course, or ever experiencing serious hypoglycaemia were not associated with glycaemic control. CONCLUSIONS: We present representative national data on factors that were associated with glycaemic control. A better understanding and awareness of these factors, together with technological advances in diabetes management, could lead to more personalized management strategies, better glycaemic control and a lower risk of diabetes complications.

Population, general practitioner and practice characteristics are associated with screening procedures for microvascular complications in Type 2 diabetes care in Norway.

AIMS: To assess population, general practitioner (GP) and practice characteristics associated with the performance of microvascular screening procedures and to propose strategies to improve Type 2 diabetes care. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey in Norway (281 GPs from 77 practices) identified 8246 people with a Type 2 diabetes duration of 1 year or more. We used multilevel regression models with either the recording of at least two of three recommended screening procedures (albuminuria, monofilament, eye examination) or each procedure separately as dependent variable (yes/no), and characteristics related to the person with diabetes, GP or practice as independent variables. RESULTS: The performance of recommended screening procedures was recorded in the following percentages: albuminuria 31.5%, monofilament 27.5% and eye examination 60.0%. There was substantial heterogeneity between practices, and between GPs within practices for all procedures. Compared with people aged 60-69 years, those aged < 50 years were less likely to have an albuminuria test performed [odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93] and eye examination (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.95). People with macrovascular disease had fewer screening procedures recorded (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.78). Use of an electronic diabetes form was associated with improved screening  (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.78). GPs with high workload recorded fewer procedures (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of screening procedures was suboptimal overall, and in people who should be prioritized. Performance varied substantially between GPs and practices. The use of a structured diabetes form should be mandatory.