Diabetes MILES-2 2016 Survey Report

Diabetes MILES-2 2016 Survey Repor

Supplementary_Table_S2 – Supplemental material for What is the best measure for assessing diabetes distress? A comparison of the Problem Areas in Diabetes and Diabetes Distress Scale: results from Diabetes MILES–Australia

<p>Supplemental material, Supplementary_Table_S2 for What is the best measure for assessing diabetes distress? A comparison of the Problem Areas in Diabetes and Diabetes Distress Scale: results from Diabetes MILES–Australia by Eva K Fenwick, Gwyn Rees, Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott, Jessica L Browne, Frans Pouwer and Jane Speight in Journal of Health Psychology</p

Supplementary_Table_S1 – Supplemental material for What is the best measure for assessing diabetes distress? A comparison of the Problem Areas in Diabetes and Diabetes Distress Scale: results from Diabetes MILES–Australia

<p>Supplemental material, Supplementary_Table_S1 for What is the best measure for assessing diabetes distress? A comparison of the Problem Areas in Diabetes and Diabetes Distress Scale: results from Diabetes MILES–Australia by Eva K Fenwick, Gwyn Rees, Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott, Jessica L Browne, Frans Pouwer and Jane Speight in Journal of Health Psychology</p

DataSheet_1_The impact of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose on clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.docx

BackgroundSelf-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is considered of little clinical benefit for adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, but no comprehensive review of a structured approach to SMBG has been published to date.PurposeTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of sSMBG on HbA1c, treatment modifications, behavioral and psychosocial outcomes, and; examine the moderating effects of sSMBG protocol characteristics on HbA1c.Data sourcesFour databases searched (November 2020; updated: February 2022).Study selectionInclusion criteria: non-randomized and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies; reporting effect of sSMBG on stated outcomes; among adults (≥18 years) with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Studies excluded if involving children or people with insulin-treated or other forms of diabetes.Data extraction and analysisOutcome data extracted, and risk of bias/quality assessed independently by two researchers. Meta-analysis was conducted for RCTs, and moderators explored (HbA1c only).Data synthesisFrom 2,078 abstracts, k=23 studies were included (N=5,372). Risk of bias was evident and study quality was low. Outcomes assessed included: HbA1c (k=23), treatment modification (k=16), psychosocial/behavioral outcomes (k=12). Meta-analysis revealed a significant mean difference favoring sSMBG in HbA1c (-0·29%, 95% CI: -0·46 to -0·11, k=13) and diabetes self-efficacy (0.17%, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.33, k=2). Meta-analysis revealed no significant moderating effects by protocol characteristics.LimitationsFindings limited by heterogeneity in study designs, intervention characteristics, and psychosocial assessments.ConclusionA small positive effect of sSMBG on HbA1c and diabetes self-efficacy was observed. Narrative synthesis of sSMBG intervention characteristics may guide future implementation.PROSPERO registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020208857, identifier CRD42020208857.</p

GP-OSMOTIC trial protocol: an individually randomised controlled trial to determine the effect of retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (r-CGM) on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal glycaemia can reduce type 2 diabetes (T2D) complications. Observing retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (r-CGM) patterns may prompt therapeutic changes but evidence for r-CGM use in T2D is limited. We describe the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining intermittent r-CGM use (up to 14 days every three months) in T2D in general practice (GP). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: General Practice Optimising Structured MOnitoring To achieve Improved Clinical Outcomes is a two-arm RCT asking 'does intermittent r-CGM in adults with T2D in primary care improve HbA1c?' PRIMARY OUTCOME: Absolute difference in mean HbA1c at 12 months follow-up between intervention and control arms. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (a) r-CGM per cent time in target (4-10 mmol/L) range, at baseline and 12 months; (b) diabetes-specific distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes). ELIGIBILITY: Aged 18-80 years, T2D for ≥1 year, a (past month) HbA1c>5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%) above their individualised target while prescribed at least two non-insulin hypoglycaemic therapies and/or insulin (therapy stable for the last four months). Our general glycaemic target is 53 mmol/mol (7%) (patients with a history of severe hypoglycaemia or a recorded diagnosis of hypoglycaemia unawareness will have a target of 64 mmol/mol (8%)).Our trial compares r-CGM use and usual care. The r-CGM report summarising daily glucose patterns will be reviewed by GP and patient and inform treatment decisions. Participants in both arms are provided with 1 hour education by a specialist diabetes nurse.The sample (n=150/arm) has 80% power to detect a mean HbA1c difference of 5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%) with an SD of 14.2 (1.3%) and alpha of 0.05 (allowing for 10% clinic and 20% patient attrition). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: University of Melbourne Human Ethics Sub-Committee (ID 1647151.1). Dissemination will be in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a plain-language summary for participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: >ACTRN12616001372471; Pre-results