Diabetes-related events in adolescents and young adults: opportunities for psychosocial interventions.

This study was conducted to evaluate predictive factors of diabetes-related emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations among adolescents and young adults (AYA) with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Baseline demographic, medical, and psychosocial variables were collected for 177 AYA with T1D. Medical records were reviewed to identify ER visits and hospitalizations related to diabetes. Those with diabetes-related events had significantly higher hemoglobin A1c (A1c) values at baseline (p = 0.0001) and during an average 3.36 years of follow-up (p < 0.0001). Participants with events were more likely to have Medicaid or no insurance vs. private insurance (p = 0.0006) and were more likely to be on multiple daily injections vs. insulin pumps (p = 0.0159). Participants with events reported greater diabetes impact on their lives and their parents reported less autonomy in AYA with events (p = 0.0435). These results suggest that when participants were transferring from pediatric to adult care services, factors such as A1c, insurance status and diabetes treatment are associated with diabetes-related events. Further research is needed to elucidate a causative relationship and develop focused interventions to reduce diabetes-related events during this high-risk time. Autonomy should be further explored to determine its role in diabetes-related events during this transition period.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

This article was copublished in Diabetes Care 2017;40:1409-1419 and The Diabetes Educator 2017;43:449-464 and is reprinted with permission. The previous version of this article, also copublished in Diabetes Care and The Diabetes Educator, can be found at Diabetes Care 2012;35:2393-2401 (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-1707).

2022 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

PURPOSE: The National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) provide guidance and evidence-based, quality practice for all DSMES services. Due to the dynamic nature of health care and diabetes research, the National Standards are reviewed and revised approximately every 5 years by key stakeholders and experts within the diabetes care and education community. For each revision, the Task Force is charged with reviewing the current National Standards for appropriateness, relevance, and scientific basis and making updates based on current evidence and expert consensus. In 2021, the group was tasked with reducing administrative burden related to DSMES implementation across diverse care settings. CONCLUSION: The evidence supporting the 2022 National Standards clearly identifies the need to provide person-centered services that embrace cultural differences, social determinants of health, and the ever-increasing technological engagement platforms and systems. Payers are invited to review the National Standards as a tool to inform and modernize DSMES reimbursement requirements and to align with the evolving needs of people with diabetes (PWD) and physicians/other qualified health care professionals. The American Diabetes Association and the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists strongly advocate for health equity to ensure all PWD have access to this critical service proven to improve outcomes both related to and beyond diabetes. The 2022 National Standards update is meant to be a universal document that is easy to understand and can be implemented by the entire health care community. DSMES teams in collaboration with primary care have been shown to be the most effective approach to overcome therapeutic inertia.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. METHODS: The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. RESULTS: Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. METHODS: The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. RESULTS: Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

Intensive vs. conventional insulin management initiated at diagnosis in children with diabetes: should payer source influence the choice of therapy?

Intensive insulin management (IIM) in type 1 diabetes facilitates improved glycemic control and a reduction in long-term diabetes complications. We hypothesized that IIM can be started at diagnosis without deleterious effects on hemoglobin A1c (A1c), body mass index (BMI), and severe hypoglycemia regardless of payer source. Type 1 diabetes patients aged 0-18 yrs, in an academic endocrinology practice were identified for a retrospective chart review. Fifty-four patients on conventional insulin management (CIM) were compared to 51 on IIM. Insulin regimens, payer, and A1c values were compared at baseline, 12, 15, and 18 months. Secondary analyses included BMI changes and hypoglycemia frequency. Overall mean A1c values for the IIM group (8.15 +/- 1.41) were lower across all time periods compared to the CIM group (8.57 +/- 1.52). Repeated measures anova revealed a significant treatment group effect (p = 0.01) with no time effect (p = 0.87) or interaction (group by time) effect (p = 0.65). Private insurance patients had lower mean A1C values than Medicaid patients (chi(2) = 4.5186, p < 0.05), regardless of regimen. A1c values between IIM and CIM were not statistically different within the Medicaid group. BMI changes between groups were not different. Chi-square analysis for severe hypoglycemia revealed no group differences. In conclusion, IIM had improved glycemic control. Private insurance vs. Medicaid patients had lower mean A1c values regardless of treatment group. Considering Medicaid patients only, IIM was not inferior, and for those with private insurance, IIM was superior. IIM, initiated at diagnosis, is a reasonable approach for newly diagnosed children with diabetes regardless of payer source.

Prevalence of dyslipidemia and factors affecting dyslipidemia in young adults with type 1 diabetes: evaluation of statin prescribing.

Background There is limited information about cardiovascular complications among young adults (YA) with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) who are transitioning from pediatric to adult care. We aimed to study the prevalence and associated factors of dyslipidemia (DLD) and statin treatment in these patients. Methods We recruited 129 YA with T1DM aged 15-25 years. In a cross-sectional analysis, the prevalence of DLD (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] ≥ 100 mg/dL, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C] <40 mg/dL [males] or <50 mg/dL [females], total cholesterol [TC] ≥200 mg/dL or triglycerides [TG] ≥150 mg/dL) was reported. Socioeconomic and clinical characteristics were compared between YA with and without DLD. We also assessed statin use among YA with DLD. Results DLD was found in 64% of YA, predominantly increased LDL-C (34.9%). Higher mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was associated with DLD (p < 0.043). Of all YA who met the criteria for statin therapy, only 42% had one prescribed. Conclusions The prevalence of DLD is high in YA with T1DM and is associated with poor glycemic control, and use of statin therapy in this high-risk population is low.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. METHODS: The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. RESULTS: Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. Methods The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. Results Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. Conclusion Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. Methods The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. Results Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. Conclusion Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

Outpatient Management of Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes.

The incidence of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (T1DM and T2DM) continues to rise within the pediatric population. However, T1DM remains the most prevalent form diagnosed in children. It is critical that health-care professionals understand the types of diabetes diagnosed in pediatrics, especially the distinguishing features between T1DM and T2DM, to ensure proper treatment. Similar to all individuals with T1DM, lifelong administration of exogenous insulin is necessary for survival. However, children have very distinct needs and challenges compared to those in the adult diabetes population. Accordingly, treatment, goals, and age-appropriate requirements must be individually addressed. The main objectives for the treatment of pediatric T1DM include maintaining glucose levels as close to normal as possible, avoiding acute complications, and preventing long-term complications. In addition, unique to pediatrics, facilitating normal growth and development is important to comprehensive care. To achieve these goals, a careful balance of insulin therapy, medical nutrition therapy, and exercise or activity is necessary. Pharmacological treatment options consist of various insulin products aimed at mimicking prior endogenous insulin secretion while minimizing adverse effects. This review focuses on the management of pediatric T1DM in the outpatient environment, highlighting pharmacotherapy management strategies.

Diabetes educator mentorship program: mentors requested.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to describe the Diabetes Educator Mentorship Program, communicate mentors' experiences and perceptions during the first 3 years following implementation, and provide strategies to encourage mentoring. CONCLUSIONS: Creation of this collaborative program has fostered successful attainment of additional certified diabetes educators who obtained diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) practice requirement hours through a voluntary Diabetes Educator Mentorship Program. There is a significant need for additional mentors to meet the growing need for mentoring partnerships. Increasing the number of mentors will provide more opportunities to those seeking to gain DSMES experience and will ultimately expand the number of health professionals available to educate those with diabetes or prediabetes.

Diabetes knowledge in young adults: associations with hemoglobin A1C.

The purpose of this study was to quantify associations between hemoglobin A1C (A1C) and diabetes knowledge score using an assessment tool developed to evaluate the level of diabetes knowledge in young adults with Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and their parent/primary caregiver. Seventy-five participants with T1DM, ages 15-22 years, completed questionnaires. Two 25-item questionnaires were developed: one for patient and one for caregiver. Linear regression quantified associations between correct items on the tools and participant A1C and demographic characteristics. Mean age of participants was 16.7 ± 1.7 years, diabetes duration 5.9 ± 4.2 years, 46.7% male, 74.7% Caucasian, 69.3% on multiple daily injections, and 30.7% on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy; 78.7% of parents/caregivers completed the questionnaire. A significant interaction was observed between patient and caregiver scores with A1C by diabetes duration. Among patients with diabetes <6 years, higher patient and caregiver scores were associated with lower A1C (-0.25 ± 0.11, p = .03 and -0.59 ± 0.19, p = .005, respectively) accounting for age, gender, race, therapy, and insurance. Neither patient nor caregiver score was associated with A1C in patients with diabetes duration ≥6 years. Better performance on a diabetes knowledge assessment (for both patient and the caregiver) was found to be associated with more favorable levels of glycemic control among young adults with diabetes <6 years. Additional evaluation of these questionnaires and novel interventions to enhance knowledge in this population are needed.

Use of the Mastery of Stress Instrument in caregivers of children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: identifying a need for further intervention.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if the Mastery of Stress Instrument (MSI) can assess further education needs of primary caregivers of children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. The MSI has been utilized to measure mastery in response to both illness and interventions, including education. The primary objective was to correlate MSI subscales and stress scores with caregiver age, ethnicity, gender, and education. Secondary objectives were to correlate MSI scores with child age at diagnosis, payer source, hemoglobin A1C (A1C), emergency room (ER) visits, or hospitalization for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). METHODS: Caregivers from a pediatric endocrinology practice completed the MSI after basic diabetes education. Demographic data from caregivers and patients were obtained. A1C, ER, and DKA were evaluated 2 years following completion of the MSI. Descriptive univariate statistics and proportions on nominal or discrete data were used to describe the data. Bivariable analyses included t tests and ANOVAs. RESULTS: Eighty-five of 88 participants completed the instrument. Caregivers between 40 and 49 years of age scored worse on change, acceptance, and growth subscales compared to those 18 to 29 years of age. Those 40 to 49 years of age reported having more stress compared to caregivers 18 to 29 years of age. Males reported having less stress and were more willing to implement change compared to females. No statistically significant relationships between secondary outcomes measurements and MSI scores were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The mastery of stress instrument identified groups of caregivers in need of further education or team interventions.