Perspectives of patients with type 1 or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes on self-monitoring of blood glucose: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), including self-regulation, is an important tool to achieve good glycemic control. However, many patients measure their glucose concentrations less often than is recommended. This study investigates patients' perspectives of SMBG and all relevant aspects influencing SMBG in patients with type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In depth interviews were conducted with 13 patients with type 1 diabetes from an outpatient clinic and 15 patients with type 2 diabetes from general practices. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the Grounded Theory approach.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A wide variety of SMBG was encountered. Perceptions, goals of SMBG and personal and contextual factors were identified, influencing the respondents' perspective of SMBG, and leading to this variety. Respondents experienced a discrepancy between their own and the professionals' perceptions and goals. Respondents' perception of SMBG ranged along a continuum from 'friend' to 'foe'. With respect to the goals, the respondents experienced tension between achieving good glycemic control and quality of life, and deliberately made their own choices. The performance of SMBG was tailored to their perceptions and personal goals. Personal and contextual factors such as hypo- or hyper (un)awareness, knowledge, and contact with professionals acted as either facilitating factors or as barriers to SMBG, depending on the respondents' perspective. A SMBG model was developed providing a representation of the factors and their interrelations.</p> <p>Respondents with type 1 diabetes seemed more resigned to their situation and SMBG was more integrated into their lives.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>From the patients' perspective, professionals positively present SMBG as a 'friend' in order to achieve strict glycemic control. Whereas patients can also perceive SMBG as a 'foe'. They primarily seek a personal balance between achieving glycemic control and quality of life, leading them to deliberately make other choices regarding SMBG performance than was recommended. Gaining insight and discussing all factors affecting SMBG will help professionals and patients come to mutually agreed goals and to tailor the performance of SMBG to the individual patient. This should result in a more optimal use of SMBG, an improved quality of life, and improved clinical parameters.</p

Patient-centred and professional-directed implementation strategies for diabetes guidelines: a cluster-randomized trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

Item does not contain fulltextAIMS: Economic evaluations of diabetes interventions do not usually include analyses on effects and cost of implementation strategies. This leads to optimistic cost-effectiveness estimates. This study reports empirical findings on the cost-effectiveness of two implementation strategies compared with usual hospital outpatient care. It includes both patient-related and intervention-related cost. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a clustered-randomized controlled trial design, 13 Dutch general hospitals were randomly assigned to a control group, a professional-directed or a patient-centred implementation programme. Professionals received feedback on baseline data, education and reminders. Patients in the patient-centred group received education and diabetes passports. A validated probabilistic Dutch diabetes model and the UKPDS risk engine are used to compute lifetime disease outcomes and cost in the three groups, including uncertainties. RESULTS: Glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) at 1 year (the measure used to predict diabetes outcome changes over a lifetime) decreased by 0.2% in the professional-change group and by 0.3% in the patient-centred group, while it increased by 0.2% in the control group. Costs of primary implementation were < 5 Euro per head in both groups, but average lifetime costs of improved care and longer life expectancy rose by 9389 Euro and 9620 Euro, respectively. Life expectancy improved by 0.34 and 0.63 years, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) by 0.29 and 0.59. Accordingly, the incremental cost per QALY was 32 218 Euro for professional-change care and 16 353 for patient-centred care compared with control, and 881 Euro for patient-centred vs. professional-change care. Uncertainties are presented in acceptability curves: above 65 Euro per annum the patient-directed strategy is most likely the optimum choice. CONCLUSION: Both guideline implementation strategies in secondary care are cost-effective compared with current care, by Dutch standards, for these patients. Additional annual costs per patient using patient passports are low. This analysis supports patient involvement in diabetes in the Netherlands, and probably also in other Western European settings

Netherlands: The potentials of integrating care via payment reforms

This chapter provides insight in the potential of integrating care through payment reform in the Netherlands. We begin by briefly outlining the main characteristics of the Dutch health care system, which has been transformed into a system of managed competition in the past decade. We focus on health care, because our case study is situated in this setting. We then describe the implementation of the bundled payment for diabetes care as one main example of stimulating nationwide implementation of integrated diabetes care in the Netherlands