&lt;p&gt;Self-Care Adherence And Barriers To Good Glycaemic Control In Nepalese Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients: A Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study&lt;/p&gt;

Pokhrel, Sushant; Shrestha, Sneha; Timilsina, Alaska; Sapkota, Manisha; Bhatt, Mahendra Prasad; Pardhe, Bashu Dev

doi:10.2147/jmdh.s216842

Cited by 23 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…45 In the study conducted by Pokhrel, those patients who had a better understanding of diabetic complications and their management showed fair glycemic control. 46 In this study, decision-making was the strongest predictor of self-care behaviors (ß= 0.451). Self-care decision making in chronic illness seems warranted so that the complexities inherent in this process can be more fully understood.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

<p>The Association of Health Literacy Level with Self-Care Behaviors and Glycemic Control in a Low Education Population with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study in Iran</p>

Chollou¹,

Gaffari-fam²,

Babazadeh³

et al. 2020

DMSO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Promoting Health Literacy (HL) can be a priority in strategic healthcare planning of the countries. Low HL is prevalent in some societies which make barriers to successful self-care of diseases. The aim of this study was to examine the association of HL with self-care behaviors and glycemic control in a low education population with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in Sarab city, Iran. The 192 participants were patients diagnosed as type 2 diabetes and with low level of education. Convenient sampling method was applied and the participants were chosen by their medical records in health-care centers. To collect data a valid and reliable tool was used based on HL dimensions and self-care behaviors. Using hierarchical logistic regression, the possible association of variables with self-care behaviors and glycemic control was assessed. Results: The mean age of study participants was 58.12 (±11.83) years. A 28.8% of the variation in the self-care behaviors is explained by the HL and the demographic variables (R= 0.288%; p-value<0.05). Furthermore, decision-making was the strongest predictor of self-care behaviors (β= 0.451). Approximately 80% of the variation in the HbA1c is explained by the HL, self-care behaviors, and the demographic variables (R= 0.804%; p-value<0.05). Conclusion: This study revealed that the HL dimensions predicted approximately onefourth of self-care behaviors and the self-care behaviors and HL dimensions about eighttenths of HbA1c in this population. These findings call for the need for interventional programs on HL to improve the self-care behaviors and HbA1c control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

<p>The Association of Health Literacy Level with Self-Care Behaviors and Glycemic Control in a Low Education Population with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study in Iran</p>

Chollou¹,

Gaffari-fam²,

Babazadeh³

et al. 2020

DMSO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies in Jordan, Kuwait, Bosnia, Nepal, Lebanon, Malaysia and Italy reported 23 to 43% of the prevalence of very good glycemic control, which was roughly the same as our study. Most studies assumed the diversity of glycemic control status to be due to the difference in sample size, duration of DM, and the degree of medication adherence [3,4,9,[16][17][18][19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glycemic control and associated factors among Iranian population with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study

Babaniamansour

Aliniagerdroudbari

Niroomand

2020

J Diabetes Metab Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Detection and modification of various factors such as life style, smoking and so on can significantly improve the glycemic control status. This study aimed to investigate glycemic control status and its relevant factors among patients with Type 2 DM. Methods In this cross-sectional study, the glycemic control status of patients with type 2 DM was investigated. In addition, relevant risk factors including demographic, clinical characteristics, self-care management behavior, medication adherence and laboratory data and their relationship with glycemic control status were assessed. Glycemic control status was defined as very good (HbA1c < 7%), good (HbA1c = 7-7.9%), poor (HbA1c = 8-9.9%) or extremely bad (HbA1c ≥ 10%).Results The present study included 562 patients (64.4% female). Most of the patients (37%) had poor glycemic control status. Microvascular complications especially diabetic neuropathy were the most common complications in our study. Glycemic control had significant relationship with level of education (p < .01) and occupation (p = .04). Among laboratory parameters, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and total cholesterol levels were significantly lower in patients with desirable glycemic control (p < .05). The linear regression test showed that HbA1c had significant relationship with FPG (p < .01) and increasing one standard deviation in FPG can increase the level of HbA1c 0.014. Conclusion Glycemic control status in our study was very low and FPG was the strongest predictor of glycemic control status. Some other factors were also associated such as education level, occupation, type of treatment, diastolic blood pressure, the lipid profile and aspartate transaminase.

show abstract

“…While better self-care leads to better glycemic control, 45 poor glycemic control is associated with poor adherence to self-care and becomes a barrier to performing self-care activities in patients with diabetes. 46 Although inconvenience was a commonly reported barrier to the performance of self-care behavior in the literature, 47 the present study suggests that patients' quality of life was maintained despite the increased frequency of self-care practices. Particularly, while no significant difference in ADDQOL was observed in the intervention arm, an alarmingly declining trend in this area for control patients was observed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Impact of team‐based pharmaceutical care on the humanistic outcomes among patients with long‐standing diabetes: An interim analysis of a randomized, controlled, multicenter study

Gallagher

Tan³

et al. 2021

J Am Coll Clin Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionEpidemiological studies have reported that diabetes‐related complications increase after 5 years of uncontrolled/suboptimal metabolic control. The risk of experiencing diabetes‐related microvascular diseases usually spike after 10 years of uncontrolled diabetes.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of team‐based pharmaceutical care on glycemic control, self‐care, diabetes‐dependent quality of life, and productivity loss in patients with long‐standing diabetes (≥5 years).MethodsThis was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study. Patients with a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) > 7%, long‐standing diabetes defined as having a disease duration of at least 5 years, and polypharmacy defined as taking 5 or more chronic medications were included in the study. Patients in the intervention arm received team‐based pharmaceutical care regularly while patients in the control arm received physician‐centered care. Patients' humanistic outcomes were followed for 6 months.ResultsA total of 248 patients (126 intervention and 122 control) were included in the study. In addition to improved glycemic control observed in the intervention arm (mean difference: 0.44%, P = .003, 95% confidence interval: [0.15, 0.73]), the intervention arm showed significant improvements in overall self‐care level (+0.36, 95% confidence interval: [0.01, 0.72], P = .045) and self‐monitoring of blood glucose (+1.87, 95% confidence interval: [1.00, 2.99], P < .001) compared with the control arm. There were no significant differences in the changes in diabetes‐associated quality of life and overall work impairment between the two arms. A significant difference in activity impairment (affected productivity in regular unpaid activity) between the two arms was found, with 43.3% impairment having occurred in the control group vs 27.9% in the intervention group (P = .047).ConclusionTeam‐based pharmaceutical care significantly improved overall self‐care and glycemia without deteriorating quality of life and incurring productivity loss. Our findings highlighted the value of team‐based pharmaceutical care in managing diabetes‐experienced patients.

show abstract

<p>Self-Care Adherence And Barriers To Good Glycaemic Control In Nepalese Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients: A Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study</p>

Cited by 23 publications

References 46 publications

<p>The Association of Health Literacy Level with Self-Care Behaviors and Glycemic Control in a Low Education Population with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study in Iran</p>

<p>The Association of Health Literacy Level with Self-Care Behaviors and Glycemic Control in a Low Education Population with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study in Iran</p>

Glycemic control and associated factors among Iranian population with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study

Impact of team‐based pharmaceutical care on the humanistic outcomes among patients with long‐standing diabetes: An interim analysis of a randomized, controlled, multicenter study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About