Selection effects may account for better outcomes of the German Disease Management Program for type 2 diabetes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The nationwide German disease management program (DMP) for type 2 diabetes was introduced in 2003. Meanwhile, results from evaluation studies were published, but possible baseline differences between DMP and usual-care patients have not been examined. The objective of our study was therefore to find out if patient characteristics as socio-demographic variables, cardiovascular risk profile or motivation for life style changes influence the chance of being enrolled in the German DMP for type 2 diabetes and may therefore account for outcome differences between DMP and usual-care patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Case control study comparing DMP patients with usual-care patients at baseline and follow up; mean follow-up period of 36 ± 14 months. We used chart review data from 51 GP surgeries. Participants were 586 DMP and 250 usual-care patients with type 2 diabetes randomly selected by chart registry. Data were analysed by multivariate logistic and linear regression analyses. Significance levels were p ≤ 0.05.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was a better chance for enrolment if patients a) had a lower risk status for diabetes complications, i.e. non-smoking (odds ratio of 1.97, 95% confidence interval of 1.11 to 3.48) and lower systolic blood pressure (1.79 for 120 mmHg vs. 160 mmHg, 1.15 to 2.81); b) had higher activity rates, i.e. were practicing blood glucose self-monitoring (1.67, 1.03 to 2.76) and had been prescribed a diabetes patient education before enrolment (2.32, 1.29 to 4.19) c) were treated with oral medication (2.17, 1.35 to 3.49) and d) had a higher GP-rated motivation for diabetes education (4.55 for high motivation vs. low motivation, 2.21 to 9.36).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>At baseline, future DMP patients had a lower risk for diabetes complications, were treated more intensively and were more active and motivated in managing their disease than usual-care patients. This finding a) points to the problem that the German DMP may not reach the higher risk patients and b) selection bias may impair the assessment of differences in outcome quality between enrolled and usual-care patients. Suggestions for dealing with this bias in evaluation studies are being made.</p

The disease management program for type 2 diabetes in Germany enhances process quality of diabetes care - a follow-up survey of patient's experiences

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In summer 2003 a disease management program (DMP) for type 2 diabetes was introduced on a nationwide basis in Germany. Patient participation and continuity of care within the DMP are important factors to achieve long-term improvements in clinical endpoints. Therefore it is of interest, if patients experience any positive or negative effects of the DMP on their treatment that would support or hamper further participation. The main objective of the study was to find out if the German Disease Management Program (DMP) for type 2 diabetes improves process and outcome quality of medical care for patients in the light of their subjective experiences over a period of one year.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cohort study with a baseline interview and a follow-up after 10.4 ± 0.64 months. Data on process and outcome measures were collected by telephone interviews with 444 patients enrolled and 494 patients not enrolled in the German DMP for type 2 diabetes. Data were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>DMP enrolment was significantly associated with a higher process quality of care. At baseline enrolled patients more often reported that they had attended a diabetes education course (OR = 3.4), have ≥ 4 contacts/year with the attending physician (OR = 3.3), have at least one annual foot examination (OR = 3.1) and one referral to an ophthalmologist (OR = 3.4) and possess a diabetes passport (OR = 2.4). Except for the annual referral to an ophthalmologist these parameters were also statistically significant at follow-up. In contrast, no differences between enrolled and not enrolled patients were found concerning outcome quality indicators, e.g. self-rated health, Glycated hemoglobin (GHb) and blood pressure. However, 16-36% of the DMP participants reported improvements of body weight and/or GHb and/or blood pressure values due to enrolment - unchanged within one year of follow-up.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In the light of patient's experiences the DMP enhances the process quality of medical care for type 2 diabetes in Germany. The lack of significant differences in outcome quality between enrolled and not enrolled patients might be due to the short program duration. Our data suggest that the DMP for type 2 diabetes should not be withdrawn unless an evidently more promising approach is found.</p

Strategies for improving participation in diabetes education. A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus is highly prevalent and can lead to serious complications and mortality. Patient education can help to avoid negative outcomes, but up to half of the patients do not participate. The aim of this study was to analyze patients' attitudes towards diabetes education in order to identify barriers to participation and develop strategies for better patient education. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study. Seven GP practices were purposively selected based on socio-demographic data of city districts in Hamburg, Germany. Study participants were selected by their GPs in order to increase participation. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 14 patients. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The sample size was determined by data saturation. Data were analysed by qualitative content analysis. Categories were determined deductively and inductively. RESULTS: The interviews yielded four types of barriers: 1) Statements and behaviour of the attending physician influence the patients' decisions about diabetes education. 2) Both, a good state of health related to diabetes and physical/psychosocial comorbidity can be reasons for non-participation. 3) Manifold motivational factors were discussed. They ranged from giving low priority to diabetes to avoidance of implications of diabetes education as being confronted with illness narratives of others. 4) Barriers also include aspects of the patients' knowledge and activity. CONCLUSIONS: First, physicians should encourage patients to participate in diabetes education and argue that they can profit even if actual treatment and examination results are promising. Second, patients with other priorities, psychic comorbidity or functional limitations might profit more from continuous individualized education adapted to their specific situation instead of group education. Third, it might be justified that patients do not participate in diabetes education if they have slightly increased blood sugar values only and no risk for harmful consequences or if they already have sufficient knowledge on diabetes

Socio-demographic data of the city districts of the study GP practices.

<p>*Practice did not recruit any study participants.</p

Themes and categories of barriers to diabetes education.

<p>Themes and categories of barriers to diabetes education.</p