Key Factors Relevant for Healthcare Decisions of Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in Secondary Care According to Healthcare Professionals.

Purpose: Understanding which factors are important for healthcare decisions of patients with diabetes in clinical practice is important to personalise diabetes care strategies and tailor care plans to the individual. The main drivers for these healthcare decisions remain unclear. This study assessed which key factors are relevant for healthcare decisions during clinical consultations for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM), according to healthcare professionals. Materials and Methods: Annual diabetes reviews were performed as part of a trial assessing the impact of a consultation model facilitating person-centred diabetes care in six hospital outpatient clinics. After each consultation, we asked healthcare professionals to choose a maximum of three out of 20 factors that were most relevant for healthcare decisions about treatment goals and the professional support needed during the upcoming year. Factors were characterised as either person or disease-related. Percentages reflect the number of annual diabetes reviews in which the key factor was reported. Results: Seventeen physicians and eight diabetes specialist nurses reported the key factors relevant for healthcare decisions in 285 annual diabetes reviews (T1DM n = 119, T2DM n = 166). Healthcare professionals most often reported quality of life (31.9%), motivation (27.0%) and diabetes self-management (25.6%), and to a lesser extent glycaemic control (24.2%), to be important for decisions about treatment goals. For decisions about the professional support needed during the upcoming year patient's preferences (33.7%), diabetes self-management (33.3%), quality of life (27.0%) and motivation (25.6%) were most often considered relevant by healthcare professionals. Conclusion: According to healthcare professionals, person-related factors such as quality of life, diabetes self-management and motivation are predominantly relevant for healthcare decisions about treatment goals and the professional support needed during the upcoming year.

Shared decision making in primary care: Process evaluation of the intervention in the OPTIMAL study, a cluster randomised trial.

AIMS: To analyse the performance of a Shared Decision Making (SDM) intervention, we assessed perceived and experienced SDM in General Practitioners (GPs) and patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial (cRCT) testing the effect of a decision aid. Opinions and experienced role regarding SDM were assessed in 72 patients and 18 GPs with the SDM-Q-9 (range 0-45) and Control Preferences Scale (CPS, 0-5), and observed SDM with the OPTION5 (0-20). SDM at baseline was compared to 24 months' follow-up using paired t-tests. RESULTS: At baseline, perceived levels of SDM did not significantly differ between GPs and patients with T2DM (difference of 2.3, p = 0.24). At follow-up, mean patients' perceived level of SDM was 7.9 lower compared to baseline (p < 0.01), whereas GPs' opinions had not changed significantly. After both visits, mean CPS scores differed significantly between patients and GPs. OPTION5 scores ranged between 6 and 20. CONCLUSION: Patients and GPs perceived similar baseline levels of SDM. Two years later, patients perceived less SDM, while GPs did not change their opinion. SDM was appropriate immediately after training, but perhaps GPs fell back in old habits over time. We recommend repeated SDM training.

Communicating personalised statin therapy-effects as 10-year CVD-risk or CVD-free life-expectancy: does it improve decisional conflict? Three-armed, blinded, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether communicating personalised statin therapy-effects obtained by prognostic algorithm leads to lower decisional conflict associated with statin use in patients with stable cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with standard (non-personalised) therapy-effects. DESIGN: Hypothesis-blinded, three-armed randomised controlled trial SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 303 statin users with stable CVD enrolled in a cohort INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard practice (control-group) or one of two intervention arms. Intervention arms received standard practice plus (1) a personalised health profile, (2) educational videos and (3) a structured telephone consultation. Intervention arms received personalised estimates of prognostic changes associated with both discontinuation of current statin and intensification to the most potent statin type and dose (ie, atorvastatin 80 mg). Intervention arms differed in how these changes were expressed: either change in individual 10-year absolute CVD risk (iAR-group) or CVD-free life-expectancy (iLE-group) calculated with the SMART-REACH model (http://U-Prevent.com). OUTCOME: Primary outcome was patient decisional conflict score (DCS) after 1 month. The score varies from 0 (no conflict) to 100 (high conflict). Secondary outcomes were collected at 1 or 6 months: DCS, quality of life, illness perception, patient activation, patient perception of statin efficacy and shared decision-making, self-reported statin adherence, understanding of statin-therapy, post-randomisation low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and physician opinion of the intervention. Outcomes are reported as median (25th- 75th percentile). RESULTS: Decisional conflict differed between the intervention arms: median control 27 (20-43), iAR-group 22 (11-30; p-value vs control 0.001) and iLE-group 25 (10-31; p-value vs control 0.021). No differences in secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION: In patients with clinically manifest CVD, providing personalised estimations of treatment-effects resulted in a small but significant decrease in decisional conflict after 1 month. The results support the use of personalised predictions for supporting decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR6227/NL6080.

Association of weight loss and weight loss maintenance following diabetes diagnosis by screening and incidence of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: An observational analysis of the ADDITION-Europe trial.

AIMS: Short-term weight loss may lead to remission of type 2 diabetes but the effect of maintained weight loss on cardiovascular disease (CVD) is unknown. We quantified the associations between changes in weight 5 years following a diagnosis of diabetes, and incident CVD events and mortality up to 10 years after diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational analysis of the ADDITION-Europe trial of 2730 adults with screen-detected type 2 diabetes from the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands. We defined weight change based on the maintenance at 5 years of weight loss achieved during the year after diabetes diagnosis, and as 5-year overall change in weight. Incident CVD events (n = 229) and all-cause mortality (n = 225) from 5 to 10 years follow-up were ascertained from medical records. RESULTS: Gaining >2% weight during the year after diabetes diagnosis was associated with higher hazard of all-cause mortality versus maintaining weight [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 3.18 (1.30-7.82)]. Losing ≥5% weight 1 year after diagnosis was also associated with mortality, whether or not weight loss was maintained at 5 years: 2.47 (0.99-6.21) and 2.72 (1.17-6.30), respectively. Losing ≥10% weight over 5 years was associated with mortality among those with body mass index <30 kg/m2 [4.62 (1.87-11.42)]. Associations with CVD incidence were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Both weight loss and weight gain after screen-detected diabetes diagnosis were associated with higher mortality, but not CVD events, particularly among participants without obesity. The clinical implications of weight loss following a diagnosis of diabetes probably depend on its magnitude and timing, and may differ by body mass index status. Personalization of weight loss advice and support may be warranted.

Person-centered diabetes care and patient activation in people with type 2 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes advocate a person-centered approach to enhance patient engagement in self-care activities. To that purpose, people with diabetes need adequate diabetes knowledge, motivation, skills and confidence. These prerequisites are captured by the concept 'patient activation'. The Dutch Diabetes Federation implemented a person-centered consultation model for the annual diabetes review. To assess its relationship with patient activation, we measured the change in patient activation, and in person and disease-related factors in people with type 2 diabetes after their second person-centered annual review. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Observational study in 47 primary care practices and six outpatient hospital clinics. FOLLOW-UP: 1 year. From 2.617 people with diabetes and capable of completing questionnaires (no additional exclusion criteria) 1.487 (56.8%) participated, 1366 with type 2 diabetes. MAIN OUTCOME: patient activation (13-item Patient Activation Measure, score 0-100). Before the first and after the second review, participants completed questionnaires. Medical data were retrieved from electronic records. We performed a repeated measure analysis using a linear mixed model in 1299 participants, who completed the first set of questionnaires. RESULTS: In 1299 participants (41.6% female, mean age 66 years, median diabetes duration 10 years, median glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 6.8%/51 mmol/mol), the mean baseline activation level was 58.9 (SD 11.7). Independent of actual diabetes care, activation levels increased 1.53 units (95% CI 0.67 to 2.39, p=0.001). Several diabetes perceptions improved significantly; diabetes distress level decreased significantly. Body mass index (-0.22, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.10, p<0.001) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-2.71 mg/dL, 95% CI -4.64 to -0.77, p=0.004) decreased, HbA1c increased 0.08% (95% CI 0.03 to 0.12) (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Person-centered diabetes care was associated with a slightly higher patient activation level, improved diabetes perception and small improvements in clinical outcomes. Person-centered care may enhance patient engagement, but one should not expect substantial improvement in patient outcomes in the short term.

Population-based screen-detected type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with less need for insulin therapy after 10 years.

INTRODUCTION: With increased duration of type 2 diabetes, most people have a growing need of glucose-lowering medication and eventually might require insulin. Presumptive evidence is reported that early detection (eg, by population-based screening) and treatment of hyperglycemia will postpone the indication for insulin treatment. A treatment legacy effect of population-based screening for type 2 diabetes of about 3 years is estimated. Therefore, we aim to compare insulin prescription and glycemic control in people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes after 10 years with data from people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes seven (treatment legacy effect) and 10 years before during care-as-usual. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Three cohorts were compared: one screen-detected cohort with 10 years diabetes duration (Anglo-Danish-Dutch study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary care (ADDITION-NL): n=391) and two care-as-usual cohorts, one with 7-year diabetes duration (Groningen Initiative to Analyze Type 2 Diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) and Zwolle Outpatient Diabetes project Integrating Available Care (ZODIAC): n=4473) and one with 10-year diabetes duration (GIANTT and ZODIAC: n=2660). Insulin prescription (primary outcome) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of people with a known diabetes duration of 7 years or 10 years at the index year 2014 were compared using regression analyses. RESULTS: Insulin was prescribed in 10.5% (10-year screen detection), 14.7% (7-year care-as-usual) and 19.0% (10-year care-as-usual). People in the 7-year and 10-year care-as-usual groups had a 1.5 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.1) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.7) higher adjusted odds for getting insulin prescribed than those after screen detection. Lower HbA1c values were found 10 years after screen detection (mean 50.1 mmol/mol (6.7%) vs 51.8 mmol/mol (6.9%) and 52.8 mmol/mol (7.0%)), compared with 7 years and 10 years after care-as-usual (MDadjusted: 1.6 mmol/mol (95% CI 0.6 to 2.6); 0.1% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) and 1.8 mmol/mol (95% CI 0.7 to 2.9); and 0.2% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.3)). CONCLUSION: Population-based screen-detected type 2 diabetes is associated with less need for insulin after 10 years compared with people diagnosed during care-as-usual. Glycemic control was better after screen detection but on average good in all groups.

Long-term effects of intensive multifactorial therapy in individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes in primary care: 10-year follow-up of the ADDITION-Europe cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The multicentre, international ADDITION-Europe study investigated the effect of promoting intensive treatment of multiple risk factors among people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes over 5 years. Here we report the results of a post-hoc 10-year follow-up analysis of ADDITION-Europe to establish whether differences in treatment and cardiovascular risk factors have been maintained and to assess effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: As previously described, general practices from four centres (Denmark, Cambridge [UK], Leicester [UK], and the Netherlands) were randomly assigned by computer-generated list to provide screening followed by routine care of diabetes, or screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment. Population-based stepwise screening programmes among people aged 40-69 years (50-69 years in the Netherlands), between April, 2001, and December, 2006, identified patients with type 2 diabetes. Allocation was concealed from patients. Following the 5-year follow-up, no attempts were made to maintain differences in treatment between study groups. In this report, we did a post-hoc analysis of cardiovascular and renal outcomes over 10 years following randomisation, including a 5 years post-intervention follow-up. As in the original trial, the primary endpoint was a composite of first cardiovascular event, including cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity (non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke), revascularisation, and non-traumatic amputation, up to Dec 31, 2014. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. ADDITION-Europe is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00237549. FINDINGS: 343 general practices were randomly assigned to routine diabetes care (n=176) or intensive multifactorial treatment (n=167). 317 of these general practices (157 in the routine care group, 161 in the intensive treatment group) included eligible patients between April, 2001, and December, 2006. Of the 3233 individuals with screen-detected diabetes, 3057 agreed to participate (1379 in the routine care group, 1678 in the intensive treatment group), but at the 10-year follow-up 14 were lost to follow-up and 12 withdrew, leaving 3031 to enter 10-year follow-up analysis. Mean duration of follow-up was 9·61 years (SD 2·99). Sustained reductions over 10 years following diagnosis were apparent for bodyweight, HbA1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol in both study groups, but between-group differences identified at 1 and 5 years were attenuated at the 10-year follow-up. By 10 years, 443 participants had a first cardiovascular event and 465 died. There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of the primary composite outcome (16·1 per 1000 person-years in the routine care group vs 14·3 per 1000 person-years in the intensive treatment group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·73-1·04; p=0·14) or all-cause mortality (15·6 vs 14·3 per 1000 person-years; HR 0·90, 0·76-1·07). INTERPRETATION: Sustained reductions in glycaemia and related cardiovascular risk factors over 10 years among people with screen-detected diabetes managed in primary care are achievable. The differences in prescribed treatment and cardiovascular risk factors in the 5 years following diagnosis were not maintained at 10 years, and the difference in cardiovascular events and mortality remained non-significant. FUNDING: National Health Service Denmark, Danish Council for Strategic Research, Danish Research Foundation for General Practice, Novo Nordisk, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment, Danish National Board of Health, Danish Medical Research Council, Aarhus University Research Foundation, Astra, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Servier, HemoCue, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK National Health Service, Merck, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UK Department of Health, and Nuts-OHRA.

Association between person and disease related factors and the planned diabetes care in people who receive person-centered type 2 diabetes care: An implementation study.

AIMS: To assess the planned diabetes care for the coming year and its associated factors in patients with Type 2 diabetes who have a person-centered annual consultation. METHODS: Implementation study of a new consultation model in 47 general practices (primary care) and 6 outpatient clinics (secondary care); 1200 patients from primary and 166 from secondary care participated. Data collection took place between November 2015 and February 2017. Outcomes: preferred monitoring frequency; referral to other health care provider(s); medication change. One measurement at the end of the consultation. We performed logistic regression analyses. Differences between primary and secondary care were analyzed. RESULTS: Many patients arranged a monitoring frequency <4 times per year (general practices 19.5%, outpatient clinics 40%, p < .001). Type of provider (physician/nurse, OR 3.83, p < .001), baseline HbA1c (OR 1.02, p = .017), glucose lowering medication; and setting treatment goals (OR .65, p = .048) were associated with the chosen frequency. Independently associated with a referral were age (OR .99, p = .039), baseline glucose lowering medication and patients' goal setting (OR 1.52, p = .016). Medication change was associated with type of provider, baseline HbA1c, blood glucose lowering medication, quality of life (OR .80, p = .037) and setting treatment goals (OR 2.64, p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Not only disease but also person related factors, especially setting treatment goals, are independently associated with planned care use in person-centered diabetes care.

The effectiveness of an emotion-focused educational programme in reducing diabetes distress in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus at 12-month follow-up: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes distress (DD) is an increasingly important part of clinical medicine, diabetes self-management and research topic in people with diabetes mellitus. The present study evaluated the effectiveness of a value-based emotion-focused educational program in Malay adults with type 2 diabetes (VEMOFIT) at 12-month follow-up compared with a program with systematic attention to participants' emotions (attention-control). METHODS: VEMOFIT consisted of four biweekly group sessions and a booster session after 3 months; the attention-control program consisted of three sessions over the same period. Intention-to-treat analysis with multilevel mixed modelling was done to estimate the intervention effect. RESULTS: Participants (n = 124) randomized to VEMOFIT (n = 53) or attention-control (n = 71). Mean (SD) age 55.7 (9.7) years, median diabetes duration 7.0 (8.0) years and mean HbA1c level 9.7% (82 mmol/mol). The mean DD (DDS-17 scale) level decreased in both groups (from 3.4 to 3.3 versus 3.1-2.5, respectively), significantly more in the attention-control group [adjusted difference -0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.1, -0.2]. The VEMOFIT group had a significant improvement in self-efficacy (DMSES, range 0-200; adjusted difference 16.4, 99.4% CI 1.9, 30.9). Other outcomes did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Because the attention-control program resulted in a decreased DD 1 year later, its implementation on a larger scale seems justified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02730078; NMRR-15-1144-24803.

People with type 2 diabetes and screen-detected cognitive impairment use acute health care services more often: observations from the COG-ID study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cognitive impairment which can lead to impaired diabetes self-management and an increased risk of diabetes-related complications. Routine screening for cognitive impairment in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes is therefore increasingly advocated. The aim of this study is to investigate whether people with type 2 diabetes and screen-detected cognitive impairment use acute health care services more often than patients not suspected of cognitive impairment. METHODS: People with type 2 diabetes ≥ 70 years were screened for cognitive impairment in primary care. Diagnoses in screen positives were established at a memory clinic. Information about acute health care use was collected for 2 years prior to and 2 years after screening and compared to screen negatives. RESULTS: 154 participants (38% female, mean age 76.7 ± 5.2 years, diabetes duration 8.7 ± 8.2 years) were included, 37 patients with cognitive impairment, 117 screen negatives. A higher percentage of participants with cognitive impairment compared to screen negative patients used acute health care services; this difference was significant for general practitioner's out of hours services (56% versus 34% used this service over 4 years, p = 0.02). The mean number of acute health care visits was also higher in those with cognitive impairment than in screen negatives (2.2 ± 2.8 versus 1.4 ± 2.2 visits in 4 years, p < 0.05; 1.4 ± 2.2 versus 0.7 ± 1.5 visits in 2 years after screening, p = 0.03). Factors that could have played a role in this increased risk of acute health care services use were a low educational level, the presence of depressive symptoms (CES-D score ≥ 16), self-reported problems in self-care and self-reported problems in usual activities. CONCLUSIONS: People with type 2 diabetes and screen-detected cognitive impairment use acute health care services more often.

Depressive symptoms and quality of life after screening for cognitive impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes: observations from the Cog-ID cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess changes in depressive symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after screening for cognitive impairment in people with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study, part of the Cognitive Impairment in Diabetes (Cog-ID) study. SETTING: Participants were screened for cognitive impairment in primary care. People suspected of cognitive impairment (screen positives) received a standardised evaluation at a memory clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Participants ≥70 years with type 2 diabetes were included in Cog-ID between August 2012 and September 2014, the current study includes 179 patients; 39 screen positives with cognitive impairment, 56 screen positives without cognitive impairment and 84 participants not suspected of cognitive impairment during screening (screen negatives). OUTCOME MEASURES: Depressive symptoms and HRQOL assessed with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire and the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale. Outcomes were assessed before the screening, and 6 and 24 months after screening. An analysis of covariance model was fitted to assess differences in score changes among people diagnosed with cognitive impairment, screen negatives and screen positives without cognitive impairment using a factor group and baseline score as a covariate. RESULTS: Of all participants, 60.3% was male, mean age was 76.3±5.0 years, mean diabetes duration 13.0±8.5 years. At screening, participants diagnosed with cognitive impairment had significantly more depressive symptoms and a worse HRQOL than screen negatives. Scores of both groups remained stable over time. Screen positives without cognitive impairment scored between the other two groups at screening, but their depressive symptoms decreased significantly during follow-up (mean CES-D: -3.1 after 6 and -2.1 after 24 months); their HRQOL also tended to improve. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms are common in older people with type 2 diabetes. Screening for and a subsequent diagnosis of cognitive impairment will not increase depressive symptoms.

A simple to implement and low-cost supervised walking programme in highly motivated individuals with or at risk for type 2 diabetes: An observational study with a pre-post design.

This observational study with a pre-post design, conducted in two Dutch primary healthcare centres, aimed to evaluate the effect of a supervised walking programme in highly motivated individuals with or at risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Those able and willing to walk at least 6 km, were invited for a 28-week walking programme (February to August 2017), in which participants walked in groups, once weekly under supervision of volunteer healthcare professionals. Changes in bodyweight, BMI, waist circumference, HbA1c, blood pressure, well-being, health status and patient activation were analysed using paired t-tests and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Fifty-six people were included (30 T2DM; 26 at risk), of whom 60.7% were female. Mean age was 60.6 years, median BMI 30.8 kg/m2 and mean systolic blood pressure 146.9 mm Hg. Participants with T2DM had median HbA1c of 50.0 mmol/mol. Post-challenge, BMI had decreased to 29.7 kg/m2, and waist circumference decreased 3.4 cm (95% CI 2.1-4.8), both p < 0.01. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased significantly (mean difference 6.5 mm Hg (95% CI 1.6-11.3, p = 0.01) and 3.5 mm Hg (95% CI 1.0-6.0, p < 0.01), respectively). Participants with HbA1c >53 mmol/mol at baseline (n = 8), had median decrease in HbA1c of 6.5 mmol/mol (p = 0.03). Well-being, but not health status and patient activation, improved significantly. In conclusion, in highly motivated individuals with or at risk for T2DM, this simple to implement and low-cost, but intensive, volunteer-based supervised walking programme is favourable, and therefore, can be seen as an option for clinical programs to implement to support highly motivated patients.

Cluster randomised trial on the effectiveness of a computerised prompt to refer (back) patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Information and communications technology (ICT) could support care organisations to cope with the increasing number of patients with diabetes mellitus. We aimed to aid diabetes care providers in allocating patients to the preferred treatment setting (hospital outpatient clinic or primary care practice), by using the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial. Physicians in primary and secondary care practices of the intervention group received an advisory message in the EMR during diabetes consultations if patients were treated in the 'incorrect' setting according to national management guidelines. Primary outcome: the proportion of patients that shifted to the correct treatment setting at one year follow-up. RESULTS: 47 (38 primary care and 9 internist) practices and 2778 patients were included. At baseline, 1197 (43.1%) patients were in the correct treatment setting (intervention 599; control 598). Advice most often (68.4%) regarded a consultation with the internist. After one year 12.4% of the patients in the intervention and 10.6% in the control group (p = 0.30) had shifted to the correct setting. Main reasons for not following advice were: 1. physician's preference to consider other treatment options; 2. patients' preferences. CONCLUSIONS: We could not find evidence that using the EMR to send consultation-linked advice to physicians resulted in a shift in patients. Physicians will not follow the advice, at least partly due to patients' preferences.

Diabetes care providers' opinions and working methods after four years of experience with a diabetes patient web portal; a survey among health care providers in general practices and an outpatient clinic.

BACKGROUND: To gain insight into the opinions and working methods of diabetes care providers after using a diabetes web portal for 4 years in order to understand the role of the provider in patients' web portal use. METHODS: Survey among physicians and nurses from general practices and an outpatient clinic, correlated with data from the common web portal. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight questionnaires were analysed (response rate 56.6%). Responders' mean age was 46.2 ± 9.8 years and 43.8% were physicians. The majority was of opinion that the portal improves patients' diabetes knowledge (90.6%) and quality of care (72.7%). Although uploading glucose diary (93.6%) and patient access to laboratory and clinical notes (91.2 and 71.0%) were considered important, these features were recommended to patients in only 71.8 and 19.5% respectively. 64.8% declared they informed their patients about the portal and 45.3% handed-out the information leaflet and website address. The portal was especially recommended to type 1 diabetes patients (78.3%); those on insulin (84.3%) and patients aged< 65 years (72.4%). Few found it timesaving (21.9%). Diabetes care providers' opinions were not associated with patients' portal use. CONCLUSIONS: Providers are positive about patients web portals but still not recommend or encourage the use to all patients. There seems room for improvement in their working methods.

Applicability of diagnostic constructs for cognitive impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with subtle cognitive changes, but also with more severe stages of cognitive dysfunction, including mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. For these severe stages, it is uncertain which domains are primarily affected and if all patients with impairment are captured by formal criteria for MCI or dementia. METHODS: Ninety-five patients with T2DM suspected of cognitive impairment, identified through screening in primary care, underwent neuropsychological examination assessing five different domains. MCI or dementia were diagnosed using formal criteria. RESULTS: Forty-seven participants (49%) had impairment on at least one domain, most often involving memory (30%), information processing speed (22%) and visuoperception and construction (22%). Of these 47 people, 29 (62%) had multi-domain impairment. Of the 47 participants with objective impairment, 36 (77%) met criteria for MCI, three (6%) for dementia and eight (17%) met neither diagnosis, mostly because these patients did not complain about acquired dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the clinical diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment in patients with T2DM should take into account that multiple domains can be affected and that not all patients with objective cognitive impairment fulfill criteria for MCI or dementia.

The associations between diabetes distress and self-efficacy, medication adherence, self-care activities and disease control depend on the way diabetes distress is measured: Comparing the DDS-17, DDS-2 and the PAID-5.

AIMS: To examine whether diabetes distress (DD), when measured by three different instruments, was associated differently with self-efficacy, self-care activity, medication adherence and disease control in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: A cross-sectional study in three health clinics. DD was assessed with the 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale, the 2-item DDS-2 (DDS-2) and the 5-item Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID-5). Dependent variables included self-efficacy, self-care activities, medication adherence, HbA1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP). Multiple linear and logistic regression were used in analyses. RESULTS: In total 338 participants (56% women), with a mean age of 61 years and diabetes duration of 9.8 years, were included. DDS-2 was an independent determinant of SBP (ß = 1.89, 95% CI 0.14, 3.64), DBP (ß = 1.19, 95% CI 0.16, 2.21) and blood pressure target (OR = 2.09, 95% CI 1.12, 3.83). PAID-5 was an independent determinant of medication adherence (adjusted ß = -0.05, 95% CI -0.08, -0.01) and self-care activities (OR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.26, 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Associations of DD with important aspects of diabetes care are substantially influenced by confounders and depend on the way DD is measured. Our findings call for a judicious use of different DD measures in clinical practice and research. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02730754).

Implementation of a Structured Diabetes Consultation Model to Facilitate a Person-Centered Approach: Results From a Nationwide Dutch Study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed both from a patient and provider perspective the usefulness and added value of a consultation model that facilitates person-centered diabetes care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The model consists of 1) inventory of disease and patient-related factors; 2) setting personal goals; 3) choosing treatment; and 4) determination of required care. It was implemented in 47 general practices and 6 hospital outpatient clinics. Providers were trained, and patients were recommended to prepare their visit. All filled out a questionnaire after every consultation. Differences between primary and secondary care practices and between physician-led and nurse-led consultations were analyzed. RESULTS: Seventy-four physicians and thirty-one nurses participated, reporting on 1,366 consultations with type 2 diabetes patients. According to providers, the model was applicable in 72.4% (nurses 79.3% vs. physicians 68.5%, P < 0.001). Physicians more often had a consultation time <25 min (80.4% vs. 56.9%, P < 0.001). According to providers, two of three patients spoke more than half of the consultation time (outpatient clinics 75.2% vs. general practices 66.6%, P = 0.002; nurses 73.2% vs. physicians 64.4%, P = 0.001). Providers stated that person-related factors often determined treatment goals. Almost all patients (94.4%) reported that they made shared decisions; they felt more involved than before (with physicians 45.1% vs. with nurses 33.6%, P < 0.001) and rated the consultation 8.6 of 10. After physician-led consultations, 52.5% reported that the consultation was better than before (nurse visit 33.7%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A consultation model to facilitate person-centered care seems well applicable and results in more patient involvement, including shared decision making, and is appreciated by a substantial number of patients.

Antimicrobial resistance in women with urinary tract infection in primary care: No relation with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: To determine if type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with the spectrum of uropathogens and antimicrobial resistance in urinary tract infections (UTI) in primary care. METHODS: A cross-sectional study in female outpatients ≥30 years with positive urine cultures. T2DM patients were 1:1 matched to controls by age group and general practitioner (GP). GPs were sent questionnaires for additional data. Uropathogens and resistance patterns were compared between patients with and without T2DM. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the independent association between T2DM and resistance to first line treatments, defined as resistance to nitrofurantoin, trimethoprim, fosfomycin, ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and/or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. RESULTS: In 566 urine cultures, 680 uropathogens were found. Resistance to first line treatment antibiotics was present in 62.5% of patients. Frequencies and resistance rates of uropathogens did not differ between both groups of patients. Previous UTI and previous hospital admission were independent risk factors for resistance, but T2DM was not. CONCLUSIONS: In this study T2DM was not an independent risk factor for antimicrobial resistance in UTI in primary care. Previous UTI and hospitalisation are drivers of resistance and should be included in the decision to perform a urine culture to target first line UTI treatment.

How to choose the most appropriate cognitive test to evaluate cognitive complaints in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Despite the wealth of research devoted to the performance of individual cognitive tests for diagnosing cognitive impairment (including mild cognitive impairment and dementia), it can be difficult for general practitioners to choose the most appropriate test for a patient with cognitive complaints in daily practice. In this paper we present a diagnostic algorithm for the evaluation of cognitive complaints in primary care. The rationale behind this algorithm is that the likelihood of cognitive impairment -which can be determined after history taking and an informant interview- should determine which cognitive test is most suitable. METHODS: We distinguished three likelihoods of cognitive impairment: not likely, possible or likely. We selected cognitive tests based on pre-defined required test features for each of these three situations and a review of the literature. We incorporated the cognitive tests in a practical diagnostic algorithm. RESULTS: Based on the available literature, in patients with complaints but where cognitive impairment is considered to be unlikely the clock-drawing test can be used to rule out cognitive impairment. When cognitive impairment is possible the Montreal cognitive assessment can be used to rule out cognitive impairment or to make cognitive impairment more likely. When cognitive impairment is likely the Mini-Mental State Examination can be used to confirm the presence of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a diagnostic algorithm to increase the efficiency of ruling out or diagnosing cognitive impairment in primary care. Further study is needed to validate and evaluate this stepwise diagnostic algorithm.