Anaemia among primary care patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD): a multicentred cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of anaemia among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) at primary care settings and its associated factors. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study involved 808 adult patients with T2DM and CKD who were recruited via systematic sampling from 20 public primary care clinics in Peninsular Malaysia. Their sociodemographic, clinical and biomedical profiles were collected through interviews, examination of medical records and blood testing. RESULTS: The prevalence of anaemia was 31.7% (256/808). The anaemia was mainly mild (61.5%) and normocytic normochromic (58.7%). About 88.7% of the patients with anaemia were not known to have anaemia prior to the study. Among 36 patients with documented history of anaemia, 80.6% were still anaemic, and only a half received iron therapy. Multivariate regression analysis showed that women (adjusted odd ratio (AOR): 1.57, 95% CI: 1.12 to 2.21, p=0.009) and those with older age (AOR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.06, p<0.001), CKD stage 3a (AOR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.25 to 4.87, p=0.009), CKD stage 3b (AOR: 4.36; 95% CI: 2.14 to 8.85, p<0.001), CKD stage 4 (AOR: 10.12; 95% CI: 4.36 to 23.47, p<0.001), CKD stage 5 (AOR: 10.80; 95% CI: 3.32 to 35.11, p<0.001) and foot complication (AOR 3.12, 95% CI: 1.51 to 6.46, p=0.002) were more likely to have anaemia. Having higher body mass index (AOR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92 to 0.99, p=0.012) and higher diastolic blood pressure (AOR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.99, p<0.001) were associated with lower odds to have anaemia. CONCLUSION: Anaemia among patients with T2DM and CKD in primary care was common, and the majority was unrecognised. Inadequate treatment of anaemia was also prevalent. Therefore, screening of anaemia should be incorporated into the routine assessment of diabetic complications particularly for those with significant associated factors. It is hoped that such strategy could lead to early treatment and hence improve their overall care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NMRR-15-660-24324.

Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners: A grounded theory study.

INTRODUCTION: The participation of general practitioners (GPs) in primary care research is variable and often poor. We aimed to develop a substantive and empirical theoretical framework to explain GPs' decision-making process to participate in research. METHODS: We used the grounded theory approach to construct a substantive theory to explain the decision-making process of GPs to participate in research activities. Five in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions were conducted among 21 GPs. Purposeful sampling followed by theoretical sampling were used to attempt saturation of the core category. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked prior to analysis. Open line-by-line coding followed by focus coding were used to arrive at a substantive theory. Memoing was used to help bring concepts to higher abstract levels. RESULTS: The GPs' decision to participate in research was attributed to their inner drive and appreciation for primary care research and their confidence in managing their social and research environments. The drive and appreciation for research motivated the GPs to undergo research training to enhance their research knowledge, skills and confidence. However, the critical step in the GPs' decision to participate in research was their ability to align their research agenda with priorities in their social environment, which included personal life goals, clinical practice and organisational culture. Perceived support for research, such as funding and technical expertise, facilitated the GPs' participation in research. In addition, prior experiences participating in research also influenced the GPs' confidence in taking part in future research. CONCLUSIONS: The key to GPs deciding to participate in research is whether the research agenda aligns with the priorities in their social environment. Therefore, research training is important, but should be included in further measures and should comply with GPs' social environments and research support.