OBJECTIVE: Glycemic control remains suboptimal despite the wide range of available medications. More effective medication prescription might result in better control. However, the process by which physicians choose glucose-lowering medicines is poorly understood. We sought to study the means by which physicians choose medications for type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We surveyed 886 physician members of either the Society of General Internal Medicine (academic generalists, response rate 30%) or the American Diabetes Association (specialists, response rate 23%) currently managing patients with type 2 diabetes. Respondents weighed the importance of 15 patient, physician, and nonclinical factors when deciding which medications to prescribe for type 2 diabetic subjects at each of three management stages (initiation, use of second-line oral agents, and insulin). RESULTS: Respondents reported using a median of five major considerations (interquartile range 4-6) at each stage. Frequently cited major considerations included overall assessment of the patient's health/comorbidity, A1C level, and patient's adherence behavior but not expert guidelines/hospital algorithms or patient age. For insulin initiation, academic generalists placed greater emphasis on patient adherence (76 vs. 60% of specialists, P < 0.001). These generalists also identified patient fear of injections (68%) and patient desire to prolong noninsulin therapy (68%) as major insulin barriers. Overall, qualitative factors (e.g., adherence, motivation, overall health assessment) were somewhat more highly considered than quantitative factors (e.g., A1C, age, weight) with mean aggregate scores of 7.3 vs. 6.9 on a scale of 0-10, P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The physicians in our survey considered a wide range of qualitative and quantitative factors when making medication choices for hyperglycemia management. The apparent complexity of the medication choice process contrasts with current evidence-based treatment guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: Glycemic control remains suboptimal despite the wide range of available medications. More effective medication prescription might result in better control. However, the process by which physicians choose glucose-lowering medicines is poorly understood. We sought to study the means by which physicians choose medications for type 2 diabeticpatients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We surveyed 886 physician members of either the Society of General Internal Medicine (academic generalists, response rate 30%) or the American Diabetes Association (specialists, response rate 23%) currently managing patients with type 2 diabetes. Respondents weighed the importance of 15 patient, physician, and nonclinical factors when deciding which medications to prescribe for type 2 diabetic subjects at each of three management stages (initiation, use of second-line oral agents, and insulin). RESULTS: Respondents reported using a median of five major considerations (interquartile range 4-6) at each stage. Frequently cited major considerations included overall assessment of the patient's health/comorbidity, A1C level, and patient's adherence behavior but not expert guidelines/hospital algorithms or patient age. For insulin initiation, academic generalists placed greater emphasis on patient adherence (76 vs. 60% of specialists, P < 0.001). These generalists also identified patient fear of injections (68%) and patient desire to prolong noninsulin therapy (68%) as major insulin barriers. Overall, qualitative factors (e.g., adherence, motivation, overall health assessment) were somewhat more highly considered than quantitative factors (e.g., A1C, age, weight) with mean aggregate scores of 7.3 vs. 6.9 on a scale of 0-10, P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The physicians in our survey considered a wide range of qualitative and quantitative factors when making medication choices for hyperglycemia management. The apparent complexity of the medication choice process contrasts with current evidence-based treatment guidelines.
Authors: Jinan B Saaddine; Michael M Engelgau; Gloria L Beckles; Edward W Gregg; Theodore J Thompson; K M Venkat Narayan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-04-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: J A Spoelstra; R P Stolk; O H Klungel; J A Erkens; G E H M Rutten; H G M Leufkens; D E Grobbee Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elbert S Huang; Suzanne Gleason; Ronald Gaudette; Enrico Cagliero; Patricia Murphy-Sheehy; David M Nathan; Daniel E Singer; James B Meigs Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Saira Khan; Jianwen Cai; Matthew E Nielsen; Melissa A Troester; James L Mohler; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Laura Farnan; Bettina F Drake; Andrew F Olshan; Jeannette T Bensen Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Charles Senteio; Julia Adler-Milstein; Caroline Richardson; Tiffany Veinot Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Mary T Korytkowski; Maria Brooks; Manuel Lombardero; Dilhari DeAlmeida; Justin Kanter; Vasudev Magaji; Trevor Orchard; Linda Siminerio Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2014-12-18
Authors: Scott J Pilla; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Stephen P Juraschek; Jeanne M Clark; Nisa M Maruthur Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Neda Ratanawongsa; Jesse C Crosson; Dean Schillinger; Andrew J Karter; Chandan K Saha; David G Marrero Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Karen E Lutfey; Stephen M Campbell; Megan R Renfrew; Lisa D Marceau; Martin Roland; John B McKinlay Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2008-08-12 Impact factor: 4.634