Development and acceptability of a culturally competent skills and knowledge assessment tool for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Background: Patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and newly prescribed insulin need to learn essential self-care and management skills quickly. To optimize teaching, clinicians need to assess a patient's basic understanding of DM and their skills. While DM patient assessments exist, this study reports the development of an assessment of patient DM management skills and knowledge, using feedback from DM clinicians, patients, and caregivers. Research Design and Methods: A systematic search of Pubmed/Medline and Scopus (1980-2017) of DM knowledge assessments was performed. Twenty-four studies were identified. Content from the existing assessments was adapted to create a 12 item DM-Skills Knowledge Assessment (SKA) to assess a patient's DM management skills and knowledge. To assess cultural humility, modified cognitive interviews were conducted in individual user sessions and semi-structured focus groups. Audio-transcripts of the interviews/focus groups were independently coded, and codes were grouped into key themes. Participant demographic characteristics were assessed. Results: Five focus groups and eleven key informant interviews were conducted, including 10 DM clinicians, 12 patients/caregivers, and 15 laypersons. All 10 clinicians reported that the DM-SKA addresses the key domains of DM education deemed to be of highest importance during the transition from hospital to home and that their patients would be willing to complete the assessment. More than half of the patient/caregiver/layperson participants self-reported race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic white and performed similarly to non-Hispanic white participants in understanding each item, willingness to complete the DM-SKA, and perception that family or community members would be willing to complete the DM-SKA. The DM-SKA has a baseline Flesch reading score of 81.3, indicating low complexity language. Conclusion: DM clinicians agreed that the DM-SKA assesses all essential DM management skills. For patients/caregivers, it has acceptable literacy, cognitive validity, and culturally acceptable for racial/ethnic minority populations in the study, including elderly persons.

Beyond A1C: exploring continuous glucose monitoring metrics in managing diabetes.

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) has long been considered a cornerstone of diabetes mellitus (DM) management, as both an indicator of average glycemia and a predictor of long-term complications among people with DM. However, HbA1c is subject to non-glycemic influences which confound interpretation and as a measure of average glycemia does not provide information regarding glucose trends or about the occurrence of hypoglycemia and/or hyperglycemia episodes. As such, solitary use of HbA1c, without accompanying glucose data, does not confer actionable information that can be harnessed to guide targeted therapy in many patients with DM. While conventional capillary blood glucose monitoring (BGM) sheds light on momentary glucose levels, in practical use the inherent infrequency of measurement precludes elucidation of glycemic trends or reliable detection of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia episodes. In contrast, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data reveal glucose trends and potentially undetected hypo- and hyperglycemia patterns that can occur between discrete BGM measurements. The use of CGM has grown significantly over the past decades as an ever-expanding body of literature demonstrates a multitude of clinical benefits for people with DM. Continually improving CGM accuracy and ease of use have further fueled the widespread adoption of CGM. Furthermore, percent time in range correlates well with HbA1c, is accepted as a validated indicator of glycemia, and is associated with the risk of several DM complications. We explore the benefits and limitations of CGM use, the use of CGM in clinical practice, and the application of CGM to advanced diabetes technologies.

Differences in the sodium content of bread products in the USA and UK: implications for policy.

OBJECTIVE: Americans consume Na in excess of daily recommendations. Most dietary Na comes from packaged foods, and bread is a major contributor. In the UK, national Na reduction strategies contributed to lower Na levels in packaged foods and lower population Na intake. Similar initiatives are emerging in the USA and require surveillance to assess effectiveness. We aimed to examine Na levels in bread products in the USA and compare levels with similar UK products. DESIGN: Na data for bread products were obtained from the US Label Insight Open Data Initiative (n 4466) and the FoodSwitch UK database (n 1651). Mean, median and range of Na content, and proportion of products meeting Na targets established by the National Salt Reduction Initiative (NSRI) and the UK Department of Health (DH) were calculated overall, by bread type and by country. RESULTS: Mean (sd) Na content in bread was 455 (170) mg/100 g in the USA and 406 (179) mg/100 g in the UK. In both countries, savoury bread had the highest mean Na (USA=584 mg/100 g, UK=543 mg/100 g) and fruit bread the lowest mean Na (USA=345 mg/100 g, UK=277 mg/100 g). Na content of US bread products was 12 % higher than in the UK, with 21 % of US bread products and 31 % of UK bread products meeting the NSRI and DH targets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: US bread products have, on average, 12 % more Na than similar products in the UK. Variation in Na content within product categories, and between countries, suggests the feasibility of manufacturing products with lower Na to lower dietary Na intake.

Rank reversal in indirect comparisons.

OBJECTIVE: To describe rank reversal as a source of inconsistent interpretation intrinsic to indirect comparison (Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epi 1997;50:683-91) of treatments and to propose best practice. METHODS: We prove our main points with intuition, examples, graphs, and mathematical proofs. We also provide software and discuss implications for research and policy. RESULTS: When comparing treatments by indirect means and sorting them by effect size, three common measures of comparison (risk ratio, risk difference, and odds ratio) may lead to vastly different rankings. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of risk measure matters when making indirect comparisons of treatments. The choice should depend primarily on the study design and the conceptual framework for that study.