PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: This study identified approaches to diabetes self-management that differentiate persons with well-controlled from poorly controlled diabetes. Previous research has focused largely on persons participating in self-management interventions. DESIGN AND METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 48 adults, drawn from a population-based sample aged 65 years or older with diabetes. The sample was stratified by sex and ethnic group (African American, American Indian, and White) from the low (A1C <6%) and high (A1C >8%) extremes of the glycemic control distribution. Case-based text analysis was guided by a model, including six self-management domains and four resource types (self-care, informal support, formal services, and medical care). RESULTS: A "structured" approach to self-management differentiated respondents in good glycemic control from those in poor glycemic control. Those in good glycemic control were more likely to practice specific food behaviors to limit food consumption and practice regular blood glucose monitoring with specific target values. This approach was facilitated by a greater use of home aides to assist with diabetes care. Respondents in poor glycemic control demonstrated less structure, naming general food categories and checking blood glucose in reaction to symptoms. IMPLICATIONS: Results provide evidence that degree of structure differentiates self-management approaches of persons with good and poor glycemic control. Findings should provide a foundation for further research to develop effective self-management programs for older adults with diabetes.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: This study identified approaches to diabetes self-management that differentiate persons with well-controlled from poorly controlled diabetes. Previous research has focused largely on persons participating in self-management interventions. DESIGN AND METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 48 adults, drawn from a population-based sample aged 65 years or older with diabetes. The sample was stratified by sex and ethnic group (African American, American Indian, and White) from the low (A1C <6%) and high (A1C >8%) extremes of the glycemic control distribution. Case-based text analysis was guided by a model, including six self-management domains and four resource types (self-care, informal support, formal services, and medical care). RESULTS: A "structured" approach to self-management differentiated respondents in good glycemic control from those in poor glycemic control. Those in good glycemic control were more likely to practice specific food behaviors to limit food consumption and practice regular blood glucose monitoring with specific target values. This approach was facilitated by a greater use of home aides to assist with diabetes care. Respondents in poor glycemic control demonstrated less structure, naming general food categories and checking blood glucose in reaction to symptoms. IMPLICATIONS: Results provide evidence that degree of structure differentiates self-management approaches of persons with good and poor glycemic control. Findings should provide a foundation for further research to develop effective self-management programs for older adults with diabetes.
Authors: Tiffany L Gary; Marian Batts-Turner; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Felicia Hill-Briggs; Lee R Bone; Nae-Yuh Wang; David M Levine; Neil R Powe; Christopher D Saudek; Martha N Hill; Maura McGuire; Frederick L Brancati Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-10-26
Authors: Jan P Bremer; Kamila Jauch-Chara; Manfred Hallschmid; Sebastian Schmid; Bernd Schultes Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Sara A Quandt; Teresa Reynolds; Christine Chapman; Ronny A Bell; Joseph G Grzywacz; Edward H Ip; Julienne K Kirk; Thomas A Arcury Journal: J Appl Gerontol Date: 2013-10
Authors: Dara H Sorkin; Karen S Rook; Belinda Campos; Becky Marquez; Jessica Solares; Dana B Mukamel; Bess Marcus; David Kilgore; Emily Dow; Quyen Ngo-Metzger; Danh V Nguyen; Kelly Biegler Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 2.226