Jun Wu1, Mary Lynn Davis-Ajami2, Virginia Noxon3, Zhiqiang Kevin Lu3. 1. Department of Pharmaceutical & Administrative Sciences, Presbyterian College School of Pharmacy, 307 N. Broad Street, Clinton, SC 29325, USA. Electronic address: jwu@presby.edu. 2. Adult Health and Nursing Systems, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Nursing, Richmond, USA. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Outcomes Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To determine predictors associated with the diabetes self-management education and training (DSME) venue and its impact on oral antidiabetic (OAD) medication adherence. METHODS: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey household component (MEPS-HC) data (2010-2012) identified adults with diabetes prescribed OAD medication(s) who completed a supplemental Diabetes Care Survey (DCS). Based on the DCS responses to questions about the number and type of DSME venue(s), two groups were created: (1) multiple venues (a physician or health professional plus internet and/or group classes) vs (2) single venue (physician or health professional only). The medication possession ratio (MPR) measured medication adherence, with 0.80 the cut-point defining adherent. Logistic regression examined factors associated with the DSME venue and its effect on OAD medication adherence. RESULTS: Of the 2119 respondents, 41.6% received DSME from multiple venues. Age (<65years), education-level (college or higher), high-income, and diet modification were significantly more likely associated with receiving DSME from multiple venues. In single vs multiple venues, medication adherence was suboptimal (mean MPR 0.66 vs 0.64, p=0.245), and venue showed no influence on adherence (OR: 0.92, 95% CI, 0.73-1.16). CONCLUSION: Sociodemographic characteristics influence where adults with diabetes receive DSME. Adding different DSME venues may not address suboptimal OAD medication adherence.
AIMS: To determine predictors associated with the diabetes self-management education and training (DSME) venue and its impact on oral antidiabetic (OAD) medication adherence. METHODS: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey household component (MEPS-HC) data (2010-2012) identified adults with diabetes prescribed OAD medication(s) who completed a supplemental Diabetes Care Survey (DCS). Based on the DCS responses to questions about the number and type of DSME venue(s), two groups were created: (1) multiple venues (a physician or health professional plus internet and/or group classes) vs (2) single venue (physician or health professional only). The medication possession ratio (MPR) measured medication adherence, with 0.80 the cut-point defining adherent. Logistic regression examined factors associated with the DSME venue and its effect on OAD medication adherence. RESULTS: Of the 2119 respondents, 41.6% received DSME from multiple venues. Age (<65years), education-level (college or higher), high-income, and diet modification were significantly more likely associated with receiving DSME from multiple venues. In single vs multiple venues, medication adherence was suboptimal (mean MPR 0.66 vs 0.64, p=0.245), and venue showed no influence on adherence (OR: 0.92, 95% CI, 0.73-1.16). CONCLUSION: Sociodemographic characteristics influence where adults with diabetes receive DSME. Adding different DSME venues may not address suboptimal OAD medication adherence.