Exploring the role of the patient–physician relationship on insulin adherence and clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes: Insights from the MOSAIc study

Linetzky, Bruno; Jiang, Dongjie; Funnell, Martha M.; Curtis, Bradley; Polonsky, William H.

doi:10.1111/1753-0407.12443

Cited by 79 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…18 Interestingly, there was a separate association between HbA1c and both total "diabetes-related distress" and "hurried communication" scores, such that HbA1c was 0.171% and 0.145% higher, respectively, per unit increase. 18 Hurried communication also emerged as a theme from the Time2DoMore survey. 7 This multinational survey, across the US, UK, Spain, Brazil, India, and Japan, explored opinions and knowledge of the disease of people with diabetes and their health care providers.…”

Section: Patient Factorsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: What Causes Clinical Inertia?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Diabetes‐related distress is an independent predictor of insulin adherence, with a reduction in adherence of 14% per unit increase in distress . In turn, reduced adherence is associated with an increase in HbA1c of 0.43% (5 mmol/mol) . Key drivers of this diabetes‐related distress are centered around patient perceptions of their interaction with the physician, with four key variables: perception of having personal‐centered decisions and adequate explanation of results being positive predictors, whereas discriminatory language or hurried communication contributes to the distress .…”

Section: What Causes Clinical Inertia?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 In turn, reduced adherence is associated with an increase in HbA1c of 0.43% (5 mmol/mol). 18 Key drivers of this diabetesrelated distress are centered around patient perceptions of their interaction with the physician, with four key variables: perception of having personal-centered decisions and adequate explanation of results being positive predictors, whereas discriminatory language or hurried communication contributes to the distress. 18 Interestingly, there was a separate association between HbA1c and both total "diabetes-related distress" and "hurried communication" scores, such that HbA1c was 0.171% and 0.145% higher, respectively, per unit increase.…”

Section: Patient Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Tackling clinical inertia: Use of coproduction to improve patient engagement

Soto

Strain

2018

Journal of Diabetes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical inertia is common in all chronic diseases, including diabetes. Despite the advent of newer agents for the management of hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, the number of people with diabetes hitting all three targets remains small. The causes of clinical inertia are multifactorial, with contributory elements from people with diabetes, physicians, and the system within which they work. Every health care provider should have the best interest of their patients at heart; most people with diabetes want to maintain their health for as long as possible, and the maintenance of good health is not only the purpose of the system, but also the most cost-effective strategy. It is the thesis of this article that a potential reversible contributor to clinical inertia is the communication among these individual elements, which can be called "coproduction." The coproduction model of open communication encourages discourse, allowing the person with diabetes to understand their diagnosis and therefore better engage in treatment options. Improving engagement allows the healthcare team, including the physician and the person with diabetes, to establish shared goals that are important to all team members and to agree to acceptable side effects or risks of interventions in order to achieve these goals. Everyone needs to acknowledge that non-adherence exists and can be an issue, thereby allowing reasons to be explored. Only once the person with diabetes is allowed to take full ownership of their disease and actively participate in decision making can they take control of their disease, thereby improving outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Patient Factorsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: What Causes Clinical Inertia?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Causes Clinical Inertia?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Patient Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tackling clinical inertia: Use of coproduction to improve patient engagement

Soto

Strain

2018

Journal of Diabetes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, patients and patient advocacy organizations have expressed a desire for more personalized and humane medical care . Despite these recommendations, the results from the Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study suggest that patient‐centered care is often unavailable and that the psychosocial needs of patients with diabetes worldwide are not being met, at least partly due to communication failures between providers and patients with diabetes . Communication failures are one of the most common patient complaints and contribute to patient harm .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐centered communication in type 2 diabetes: The facilitating and constraining factors in clinical encounters

Paiva¹,

Abreu

Azevedo

et al. 2019

Health Services Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To explore the perceptions of the constraining and facilitating factors to patient‐centered communication in clinical encounters of patients with type 2 diabetes and the providers involved in their care. Data Sources/Study Setting Patients (n = 12) and providers (n = 33) involved in diabetes care in northern Portugal. Study Design Seven focus groups. Data Collection/Extraction Methods Grounded theory, using open, axial, and selective coding. Principal Findings Patients focused on the patient‐provider relationship, while providers emphasized the constraining factors when exchanging information and the facilitating factors regarding disease and treatment‐related behavior. Patients and providers both agreed on some constraints (power imbalance, avoidance of criticism, disease minimization, use of jargon, and insufficient competencies and consistency among providers) and facilitators (seeing patients as persons, providing tailored information in plain language, and recognizing the “wake‐up call”). Patients perceived an aggressive attitude as a barrier to communication, but providers perceived it as a facilitator. Patients included issues related to trust, respect, and psychosocial support as important factors to them. Only providers mentioned the influence of macro‐level interventions and patients’ socioeconomic position as essential factors. Conclusions Improvements in patient‐centered communication depend on fostering the patient‐provider relationship, patients’ participation and involvement, and training providers’ communication skills.

show abstract

Effects of mobile health interventions on improving glycemic stability and quality of life in patients with type 1 diabetes: A meta‐analysis

Liu

Chiu

Chuang

et al. 2020

Research in Nursing & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis aimed to examine the effects of mobile-health-based (mHealth) interventions on improving glycemic stability and quality of life (QOL) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Various databases, including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Chinese Electronic Periodical Services, and China Knowledge Resource Integrated, were used to search for relevant articles. A fixed-effects model or randomeffects model was used to examine the overall effect. Various methods, including Egger's test, Begg's test, and trim-and-fill, were adopted to examine publication bias. In total, 26 studies were recruited. Results of the random-effects model showed that the use of mHealth-based interventions significantly decreased glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (mean difference = −0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.53 to −0.22, p < .001), and improved life satisfaction (Hedges' g = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.50, p = .003), worry of diabetes (Hedges' g = −0.25, 95% CI = −0.41 to 0.08, p = .004), and mental health (Hedges' g = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.64, p = .012). Both adults and youths with T1D can benefit from mHealth-based interventions to improve HbA1c (Hedges' g = −0.44, p = .002 vs. −0.30, p = .003). The effect of mHealth-based interventions on improving QOL in both adults and youths could not be examined due to only one study published in adults with T1D. Moreover, those studies that included the function of feedback from professionals showed a significant effect of decreasing HbA1c compared to those without that function (Hedges' g = −0.48 vs. −0.16, p = .019). Mobile devices are convenient, instantaneous, and easy to use to communicate. Applying mHealth-based interventions with the function of feedback from professionals can be considered an alternative healthcare service to achieve optimal glycemic stability in adults and youths with T1D. K E Y W O R D S glycemic stability, meta-analysis, mobile health, quality of life, type 1 diabetes mellitus [Correction added on 28 December 2020 after first online publication: The author name Chin-Jing Liu has been amended to Chin-Jung Liu.] | CHIN-JUNG ET AL.

show abstract

Exploring the role of the patient–physician relationship on insulin adherence and clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes: Insights from the MOSAIc study

Cited by 79 publications

References 22 publications

Tackling clinical inertia: Use of coproduction to improve patient engagement

Tackling clinical inertia: Use of coproduction to improve patient engagement

Patient‐centered communication in type 2 diabetes: The facilitating and constraining factors in clinical encounters

Effects of mobile health interventions on improving glycemic stability and quality of life in patients with type 1 diabetes: A meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About