Preconception care for women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus: a mixed-methods study exploring uptake of preconception care

Background: Diabetes mellitus is a global health problem and one of the most common medical conditions in pregnancy. A wide range of modifiable risk factors are associated with diabetes mellitus in pregnancy, and it is widely acknowledged that preconception care (PCC) is beneficial for women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus. However, uptake of PCC services is low. Objectives: To systematically review qualitative research on PCC for women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus of childbearing age, identify facilitators of and barriers to uptake of PCC and establish themes and gaps in knowledge. Through qualitative interviews explore views on the provision of, and facilitators of and barriers to the uptake of, PCC. Design: Mixed methods encompassing a systematic review and qualitative interviews. Setting: Two secondary care sites and 11 primary care sites. Participants: Women of childbearing age with pre-existing type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) of white British or Pakistani origin. Interventions: None. Analysis: A narrative synthesis of the literature using thematic analysis and a thematic analysis of the qualitative interview data using the method of constant comparison. Results: Eighteen qualitative studies were included in the systematic review and a quality appraisal was carried out using relevant criteria for qualitative research appraisal, including a narrative summary of study quality. Twelve interviews with women with pre-existing T1DM or T2DM were carried out. This fell short of the original aim of interviewing 48 women owing to challenges in recruitment, especially in primary care. A synthesis of these data shows that uptake of PCC is influenced by a range of factors, including the complexity of pregnancy planning, the skill and expertise of health professionals who provide care to women with diabetes mellitus, the role of health professionals in the delivery of PCC, and the quality of relationships between women and health professionals. Limitations: Owing to significant challenges with recruitment of participants, particularly in primary care, 12 interviews with women with pre-existing T1DM or T2DM were carried out, which fell short of the a priori sample size. Conclusions: Reconceptualising PCC to place greater emphasis on pregnancy planning, fertility and contraception would lower some of the existing barriers to uptake of care. It is important to clarify who is responsible for the delivery of PCC to women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus and to ensure that the correct expertise is available so that opportunities for advice giving are maximised. Relationships between women and health professionals should be based on a partnership approach that encourages mutual trust and respect, focusing on positive change rather than negative outcomes. Future work: Further research is needed to investigate the views and experiences of stakeholders that commission, design and deliver PCC services for women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus; to explore experiences of women from minority or ethnically diverse backgrounds; to investigate the role of family support in contraception, pregnancy planning and PCC; and to investigate the management of diabetes mellitus in neonatal care and its role in breastfeeding. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014015592 and ISRCTN12983949. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Health Equity Indicators for the English NHS: a longitudinal whole-population study at the small-area level

Background: Inequalities in health-care access and outcomes raise concerns about quality of care and justice, and the NHS has a statutory duty to consider reducing them. Objectives: The objectives were to (1) develop indicators of socioeconomic inequality in health-care access and outcomes at different stages of the patient pathway; (2) develop methods for monitoring local NHS equity performance in tackling socioeconomic health-care inequalities; (3) track the evolution of socioeconomic health-care inequalities in the 2000s; and (4) develop ‘equity dashboards’ for communicating equity findings to decision-makers in a clear and concise format. Design: Longitudinal whole-population study at the small-area level. Setting: England from 2001/2 to 2011/12. Participants: A total of 32,482 small-area neighbourhoods (lower-layer super output areas) of approximately 1500 people. Main outcome measures: Slope index of inequality gaps between the most and least deprived neighbourhoods in England, adjusted for need or risk, for (1) patients per family doctor, (2) primary care quality, (3) inpatient hospital waiting time, (4) emergency hospitalisation for chronic ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, (5) repeat emergency hospitalisation in the same year, (6) dying in hospital, (7) mortality amenable to health care and (8) overall mortality. Data sources: Practice-level workforce data from the general practice census (indicator 1), practice-level Quality and Outcomes Framework data (indicator 2), inpatient hospital data from Hospital Episode Statistics (indicators 3–6) and mortality data from the Office for National Statistics (indicators 6–8). Results: Between 2004/5 and 2011/12, more deprived neighbourhoods gained larger absolute improvements on all indicators except waiting time, repeat hospitalisation and dying in hospital. In 2011/12, there was little measurable inequality in primary care supply and quality, but inequality was associated with 171,119 preventable hospitalisations and 41,123 deaths amenable to health care. In 2011/12, > 20% of Clinical Commissioning Groups performed statistically significantly better or worse than the England equity benchmark. Limitations: General practitioner supply is a limited measure of primary care access, need in deprived neighbourhoods may be underestimated because of a lack of data on multimorbidity, and the quality and outcomes indicators capture only one aspect of primary care quality. Health-care outcomes are adjusted for age and sex but not for other risk factors that contribute to unequal health-care outcomes and may be outside the control of the NHS, so they overestimate the extent of inequality for which the NHS can reasonably be held responsible. Conclusions: NHS actions can have a measurable impact on socioeconomic inequality in both health-care access and outcomes. Reducing inequality in health-care outcomes is more challenging than reducing inequality of access to health care. Local health-care equity monitoring against a national benchmark can be performed using any administrative geography comprising ≥ 100,000 people

Screening for glucose intolerance and development of a lifestyle education programme for prevention of Type 2 diabetes in a population with intellectual disabilities

Background: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is believed to be higher among people with intellectual disability (ID) than in the general population. However, research on prevalence and prevention in this population is limited. Objectives: The objectives of this programme of work were to establish a programme of research that would significantly enhance the knowledge and understanding of impaired glucose regulation (IGR) and T2DM in people with ID; to test strategies for the early identification of IGR and T2DM in people with ID; and to develop a lifestyle education programme and educator training protocol to promote behaviour change in a population with ID and IGR (or at a high risk of T2DM/CVD). Setting: Leicestershire, UK. Participants: Adults with ID were recruited from community settings, including residential homes and family homes. Adults with mild to moderate ID who had an elevated body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 25 kg/m2 and/or IGR were invited to take part in the education programme. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the screening programme was the prevalence of screen-detected T2DM and IGR. The uptake, feasibility and acceptability of the intervention were assessed. Data sources: Participants were recruited from general practices, specialist ID services and clinics, and through direct contact. Results: A total of 930 people with ID were recruited to the screening programme: 58% were male, 80% were white and 68% were overweight or obese. The mean age of participants was 43.3 years (standard deviation 14.2 years). Bloods were obtained for 675 participants (73%). The prevalence of previously undiagnosed T2DM was 1.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5% to 2%] and of IGR was 5% (95% CI 4% to 7%). Abnormal IGR was more common in those of non-white ethnicity; those with a first-degree family history of diabetes; those with increasing weight, waist circumference, BMI, diastolic blood pressure or triglycerides; and those with lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We developed a lifestyle educational programme for people with ID, informed by findings from qualitative stakeholder interviews (health-care professionals, n = 14; people with ID, n = 7) and evidence reviews. Subsequently, 11 people with ID (and carers) participated in pilot education sessions (two groups) and five people attended education for the feasibility stage (one group). We found that it was feasible to collect primary outcome measures on physical activity and sedentary behaviour using wrist-worn accelerometers. We found that the programme was relatively costly, meaning that large changes in activity or diet (or a reduction in programme costs) would be necessary for the programme to be cost-effective. We also developed a quality development process for assessing intervention fidelity. Limitations: We were able to screen only around 30% of the population and involved only a small number in the piloting and feasibility work. Conclusions: The results from this programme of work have significantly enhanced the existing knowledge and understanding of T2DM and IGR in people with ID. We have developed a lifestyle education programme and educator training protocol to promote behaviour change in this population. Future work: Further work is needed to evaluate the STOP Diabetes intervention to identify cost-effective strategies for its implementation

Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin monotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight, so initial treatment is aimed at reducing weight and increasing physical activity. Even modest weight loss can improve control of blood glucose. If drug treatment is necessary, the drug of first choice is metformin. However, some people cannot tolerate metformin, which causes diarrhoea in about 10%, and it cannot be used in people with renal impairment. This review appraises three of the newest class of drugs for monotherapy when metformin cannot be used, the sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Objective: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Luton, UK), canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen, High Wycombe, UK) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Merck & Co., Darmstadt, Germany), in monotherapy in people who cannot take metformin. Sources: MEDLINE (1946 to February 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to February 2015) for randomised controlled trials lasting 24 weeks or more. For adverse events, a wider range of studies was used. Three manufacturers provided submissions. Methods: Systematic review and economic evaluation. A network meta-analysis was carried out involving the three SGLT2 inhibitors and key comparators. Critical appraisal of submissions from three manufacturers. Results: We included three trials of dapagliflozin and two each for canagliflozin and empagliflozin. The trials were of good quality. The canagliflozin and dapagliflozin trials compared them with placebo, but the two empagliflozin trials included active comparators. All three drugs were shown to be effective in improving glycaemic control, promoting weight loss and lowering blood pressure (BP). Limitations: There were no head-to-head trials of the different flozins, and no long-term data on cardiovascular outcomes in this group of patients. Most trials were against placebo. The trials were done in patient groups that were not always comparable, for example in baseline glycated haemoglobin or body mass index. Data on elderly patients were lacking. Conclusions: Dapagliflozin, canagliflozin and empagliflozin are effective in improving glycaemic control, with added benefits of some reductions in BP and weight. Adverse effects are urinary and genital tract infections in a small proportion of users. In monotherapy, the three drugs do not appear cost-effective compared with gliclazide or pioglitazone, but may be competitive against sitagliptin (Januvia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK). Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Policy and practice for diabetes care

About the book: An insightful examination of the sociology surrounding major long term conditions, this is the final volume in the successful Sociology in Nursing Practice series. Demonstrating a high level of scholarship, it makes excellent use of current research to illuminate the social context of long term conditions and the patient's experience

ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Diabetes education in children and adolescents.

RECOMMENDATIONS/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Education is the key to successful management of diabetes [E]. To maximize the effectiveness of diabetes treatment and the advances in diabetes management and technology (especially insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring) it is advisable that quality assured structured education is available to all young people with diabetes and their carers [E]. The content and delivery of structured education needs regular review to ensure it suits the needs of people with diabetes in that community, matches local practice, and reflects changes in diabetes management and technology [E]. Evaluation of structured educational programs should include measurement of outcomes directly related to diabetes education such as the patient\u27s achievement of self‐selected diabetes‐care goals, improved psychosocial adaptation and enhanced self‐efficacy, in addition to measures of glycemic control [E]. There is evidence that educational interventions in childhood and adolescent diabetes have a beneficial effect on glycemic and psychosocial outcomes [A]. Educational interventions shown to be effective include those: based on clear theoretical psychoeducational principles [E] integrated into routine clinical care (eg, as an essential integral part of intensive insulin management) [A] referred to as an ongoing process of provision of individualized self‐management and psychosocial support [E] involving the continuing responsibility of parents and other carers throughout adolescence [B] making use of cognitive behavioral techniques most often related to problem solving, goal setting, communication skills, motivational interviewing, family conflict resolution, coping skills, and stress management [A] utilizing new technologies in diabetes care as one of the vehicles for educational motivation [A] Health care professionals require appropriate specialized training in the principles and practice of teaching and education to implement successfully behavioral approaches to education designed to empower young people and carers in promoting self‐management [E]. An interdisciplinary education team sharing the same philosophy and goals and speaking “with one voice” has beneficial effects on metabolic and psychosocial outcomes [B]. It is important that goals and targets for blood glucose and HbA1c align with those of ISPAD. A major task during the first 2 weeks after diagnosis of diabetes is to get the family to agree to encompass the same targets. [E] Mobile and web‐based applications can be useful tools for diabetes self‐management education to improve diabetes management. [E] Interactive web‐based educational resources designed by diabetes‐related device manufacturing companies are widely used for device‐specific patient training and education. [E] Telemedicine, if available, offers an alternative method to face‐to‐face diabetes review for people who live in remote areas and do not have access to professional counseling and diabetes education resources locally. [B] Diabetes peers and/or diabetes youth leaders can reinforce the principles of living well with diabetes and support the families learning especially in the resource limited setting. [E