Diabetes MILES - Australia (Management and Impact for Long-Term Empowerment and Success) : methods and sample characteristics of a national survey of the psychological aspects of living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Australian adults

Background Successful management of diabetes requires attention to the behavioural, psychological and social aspects of this progressive condition. The Diabetes MILES (Management and Impact for Long-term Empowerment and Success) Study is an international collaborative. Diabetes MILES-Australia, the first Diabetes MILES initiative to be undertaken, was a national survey of adults living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Australia. The aim of this study was to gather data that will provide insights into how Australians manage their diabetes, the support they receive and the impact of diabetes on their lives, as well as to use the data to validate new diabetes outcome measures.Methods The survey was designed to include a core set of self-report measures, as well as modules specific to diabetes type or management regimens. Other measures or items were included in only half of the surveys. Cognitive debriefing interviews with 20 participants ensured the survey content was relevant and easily understood. In July 2011, the survey was posted to 15,000 adults (aged 18-70 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes selected randomly from the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS) database. An online version of the survey was advertised nationally. A total of 3,338 eligible Australians took part; most (70.4%) completed the postal survey. Respondents of both diabetes types and genders, and of all ages, were adequately represented in both the postal and online survey sub-samples. More people with type 2 diabetes than type 1 diabetes took part in Diabetes MILES-Australia (58.8% versus 41.2%). Most respondents spoke English as their main language, were married/in a de facto relationship, had at least a high school education, were occupied in paid work, had an annual household income &gt; $AUS40,000, and lived in metropolitan areas.Discussion A potential limitation of the study is the under-representation of respondents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin). Diabetes MILES-Australia represents a major achievement in the study of diabetes in Australia, where for the first time, the focus is on psychosocial and behavioural aspects of this condition at a national level. <br /

Development of a supported self-management intervention for adults with type 2 diabetes and a learning disability

Background: Although supported self-management is a well-recognised part of chronic disease management, it has not been routinely used as part of healthcare for adults with a learning disability. We developed an intervention for adults with a mild or moderate learning disability and type 2 diabetes, building on the principles of supported self-management with reasonable adjustments made for the target population. Methods: In five steps, we: 1. Clarified the principles of supported self-management as reported in the published literature 2. Identified the barriers to effective self-management of type 2 diabetes in adults with a learning disability 3. Reviewed existing materials that aim to support self-management of diabetes for people with a learning disability 4. Synthesised the outputs from the first three phases and identified elements of supported self-management that were (a) most relevant to the needs of our target population and (b) most likely to be acceptable and useful to them 5. Implemented and field tested the intervention Results: The final intervention had four standardised components: (1) establishing the participant’s daily routines and lifestyle, (2) identifying supporters and their roles, (3) using this information to inform setting realistic goals and providing materials to the patient and supporter to help them be achieved and (4) monitoring progress against goals. Of 41 people randomised in a feasibility RCT, thirty five (85%) completed the intervention sessions, with over three quarters of all participants (78%) attending at least three sessions. Twenty-three out of 40 (58%) participants were deemed to be very engaged with the sessions and 12/40 (30%) with the materials; 30 (73%) participants had another person present with them during at least one of their sessions; 15/41 (37%) were reported to have a very engaged main supporter, and 18/41 (44%) had a different person who was not their main supporter but who was engaged in the intervention implementation. Conclusions: The intervention was feasible to deliver and, as judged by participation and engagement, acceptable to participants and those who supported them. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033 (registered 21/01/2013)

Effect of the rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart on quality of life and treatment satisfaction in patients with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare quality of life (QoL) and treatment satisfaction in patients with Type 1 diabetes receiving the rapid-acting insulin analogue, insulin aspart (IAsp), with that in patients receiving soluble human insulin (HI). METHODS: In this 6-month, multinational, randomized, open-label trial, 424 patients from German-speaking countries were subjected to psychometric assessment before and after randomization (ratio 2 : 1) to basal-bolus treatment with either IAsp (n = 283) or HI (n = 141). Patients on HI were advised to keep an injection-meal interval of 30 min, whereas patients on IAsp were advised to inject immediately before meals. Treatment satisfaction and diabetes-related QoL were assessed using validated instruments to measure the domains of patients' individual treatment goals, physical complaints, worries about the future, social relations, leisure time flexibility, daily hassles, diet restrictions, burdens and fear of hypoglycaemia, blood glucose fluctuations, self-efficacy, and fear of insulin analogues. RESULTS: After 6 months, IAsp was associated with significantly greater improvement in treatment satisfaction than HI in two different scales (P < 0.01), and in QoL with respect to diet restrictions (P < 0.01). Improved satisfaction was mainly due to increased dietary and leisure time flexibility (P < 0.0001). Twenty-three percent of the IAsp group vs. 14% of the HI group achieved small but important improvements of total QoL (between-group difference, P < 0.06). The number needed to treat (NNT) with IAsp for an important increase in QoL was calculated to be 10. Regression analyses of potential predictors of improvement in QoL highlighted patients intensely striving for physical strength (P < 0.01; NNT = 7) and patients feeling less protected against hypoglycaemia (P < 0.005; NNT = 8) as being the most likely to benefit from IAsp. CONCLUSIONS: Under these study conditions, IAsp improved treatment satisfaction and quality of life regarding diet restrictions when compared with human insulin. The 'numbers needed to treat' for important quality of life benefits indicate that the effect of IAsp in this regard is not trivial

Patient and provider perceptions of care for diabetes: results of the cross-national DAWN Study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We assessed country-level and individual-level patterns in patient and provider perceptions of diabetes care. METHODS: The study used a cross-sectional design with face-to-face or telephone interviews of diabetic patients and healthcare providers in 13 countries from Asia, Australia, Europe and North America. Participants were randomly selected adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (n=5,104), and randomly selected diabetes-care providers, including primary-care physicians (n=2,070), diabetes specialist physicians (n=635) and nurses (n=1,122). Multivariate analysis was used to examine the relationships between outcomes and both country and respondent characteristics, and the interaction between these two factors. RESULTS: Providers rated chronic-care systems and remuneration for chronic care as mediocre. Patients reported that ease of access to care was high, but not without financial barriers. Patients reported moderate levels of collaboration among providers, and providers indicated that several specialist disciplines were not readily available to them. Patients reported high levels of collaboration with providers in their own care. Provider endorsement of primary prevention strategies for type 2 diabetes was high. Patients with fewer socio-economic resources and more diabetes complications had lower access (and/or higher barriers) to care and lower quality of patient-provider collaboration. Countries differed significantly for all outcomes, and the relationships between respondent characteristics and outcomes varied by country. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: There is much need for improvement in applying the chronic-care model to the treatment and prevention of diabetes in all of the countries studied. Each country must develop its own priorities for improving diabetes care and comparison with other countries can help identify strengths as well as weaknesses

Resistance to insulin therapy among patients and providers: results of the cross-national Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN) study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the correlates of patient and provider attitudes toward insulin therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data are from surveys of patients with type 2 diabetes not taking insulin (n = 2,061) and diabetes care providers (nurses = 1,109; physicians = 2,681) in 13 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. Multiple regression analysis is used to identify correlates of attitudes toward insulin therapy among patients, physicians, and nurses. RESULTS: Patient and provider attitudes differ significantly across countries, controlling for individual characteristics. Patients rate the clinical efficacy of insulin as low and would blame themselves if they had to start insulin therapy. Self-blame is significantly lower among those who have better diet and exercise adherence and less diabetes-related distress. Patients who are not managing their diabetes well (poor perceived control, more complications, and diabetes-related distress) are significantly more likely to see insulin therapy as potentially beneficial. Most nurses and general practitioners (50-55%) delay insulin therapy until absolutely necessary, but specialists and opinion leaders are less likely to do so. Delay of insulin therapy is significantly less likely when physicians and nurses see their patients as more adherent to medication or appointment regimens, view insulin as more efficacious, and when they are less likely to delay oral diabetes medications. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and provider resistance to insulin therapy is substantial, and for providers it is part of a larger pattern of reluctance to prescribe blood glucose-lowering medication. Interventions to facilitate timely initiation of insulin therapy will need to address factors associated with this resistance