Literature DB >> 8554207

Barriers to care in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The Michigan experience.

R G Hiss1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the barriers to optimal care at the community level for patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM).
DESIGN: Comprehensive evaluation of the clinical, psychosocial, and educational status of community-based patients with NIDDM, with subsequent review by local diabetes advisory councils of this status and the care those patients have received. The frequency with which patients visited their physician for diabetes management, received patient education, received diet counseling, and were examined by an ophthalmologist-four services universally recognized to be components of optimal diabetes care-was determined for all patients.
SETTING: Eight Michigan communities, four large and four small. PATIENTS: From 1988 to 1994, 1056 patients with NIDDM defined by stimulated C-peptide criteria) were studied.
RESULTS: The frequency with which all patients with NIDDM visited their community primary care physician in 1994 was 3.7 times per year (4.6 times for patients taking insulin and 3.2 times for those not taking insulin). Thirty-three percent of all patients with NIDDM (48% of those taking insulin and 24% of those not taking insulin) had received all three other essential services, whereas 15% (6% taking insulin and 20% not taking insulin) had never received any of these services. Factors contributing to this level of care and barriers preventing more intensive management of community-based patients with NIDDM were identified by the diabetes advisory councils as they analyzed data from their own communities. The councils determined that the main barriers to optimal care of community-based patients with NIDDM are that 1) NIDDM is not considered or managed as a serious problem by most physicians and their patients; 2) the genetic basis for and refractory nature of obesity are not generally appreciated; and 3) as a complex, multisystemic chronic illness, diabetes fits poorly in a health care delivery system designed to deal with acute and episodic illnesses.
CONCLUSION: Most community-based patients with NIDDM are not aggressively managed because of attitudinal, educational, and systemic factors that act as barriers to optimal health care delivery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8554207     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-124-1_part_2-199601011-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  13 in total

1.  Sustained good glycaemic control in NIDDM patients by implementation of structured care in general practice: 2-year follow-up study.

Authors:  J J de Sonnaville; M Bouma; L P Colly; W Devillé; D Wijkel; R J Heine
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 10.122

2.  A Cluster Randomized Trial Comparing Strategies for Translating Self-Management Support into Primary Care Practices.

Authors:  W Perry Dickinson; L Miriam Dickinson; Bonnie T Jortberg; Danielle M Hessler; Douglas H Fernald; Michael Cuffney; Lawrence Fisher
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2019 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.657

3.  Type 2 diabetes in family practice. Room for improvement.

Authors:  Stewart B Harris; Moira Stewart; Judith Belle Brown; Stephen Wetmore; Catherine Faulds; Susan Webster-Bogaert; Sheila Porter
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  [Health services utilization in Mexico: the perspective of individuals with diabetes].

Authors:  F J Mercado-Martínez; E C Alcántara-Hernández; A Lizardi-Gómez; R Benítez-Morales
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 1.137

5.  The use of computerized birthday greeting reminders in the management of diabetes.

Authors:  Jennifer Elston Lafata; Ann M Baker; George W Divine; Bruce D McCarthy; Hugo Xi
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Implementation evaluation of an integrated healthcare delivery initiative for diabetic patients.

Authors:  Charo Rodríguez; André-Pierre Contandriopoulos; Danielle Larouche
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2006-03

7.  National standards for diabetes self-management education.

Authors:  Martha M Funnell; Tammy L Brown; Belinda P Childs; Linda B Haas; Gwen M Hosey; Brian Jensen; Melinda Maryniuk; Mark Peyrot; John D Piette; Diane Reader; Linda M Siminerio; Katie Weinger; Michael A Weiss
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 19.112

8.  Testing a peer support intervention for people with type 2 diabetes: a pilot for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  David Simmons; Simon Cohn; Christopher Bunn; Kym Birch; Sarah Donald; Charlotte Paddison; Candice Ward; Peter Robins; A Toby Prevost; Jonathan Graffy
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 2.497

Review 9.  National Standards for diabetes self-management education.

Authors:  Martha M Funnell; Tammy L Brown; Belinda P Childs; Linda B Haas; Gwen M Hosey; Brian Jensen; Melinda Maryniuk; Mark Peyrot; John D Piette; Diane Reader; Linda M Siminerio; Katie Weinger; Michael A Weiss
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 10.  National standards for diabetes self-management education.

Authors:  Martha M Funnell; Tammy L Brown; Belinda P Childs; Linda B Haas; Gwen M Hosey; Brian Jensen; Melinda Maryniuk; Mark Peyrot; John D Piette; Diane Reader; Linda M Siminerio; Katie Weinger; Michael A Weiss
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 19.112

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.