Search

Background: Structured primary diabetes care within a collectively supported setting is associated with better monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle-related target indicators amongst people with type 2 diabetes and with better HbA1c levels. Whether socioeconomic status affects the delivery of care in terms of monitoring and its association with HbA1c levels within this approach, is unclear. This study aims to understand whether, within a structured care approach, (1) socioeconomic categories differ concerning diabetes monitoring as recommended; (2) socioeconomic status modifies the association between monitoring as recommended and HbA1c., Methods: Observational real-life cohort study with primary care registry data from general practitioners within diverse socioeconomic areas, who are supported with the implementation of structured diabetes care. People with type 2 diabetes mellitus were offered quarterly diabetes consultations. "Monitoring as recommended" by professional guidelines implied minimally one annual registration of HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, LDL, BMI, smoking behaviour and physical activity. Regarding socioeconomic status, deprived, advantageous urban and advantageous suburban categories were compared to the intermediate category concerning (a) recommended monitoring; (b) association between recommended monitoring and HbA1c., Results: Aim 1 (n = 13 601 people): Compared to the intermediate socioeconomic category, no significant differences in odds of being monitored as recommended were found in the deprived (OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.19-1.08)), advantageous urban (OR 1.27 (95% CI 0.46-3.54)) and advantageous suburban (OR 2.32 (95% CI 0.88-6.08)) categories. Aim 2 (n = 11 164 people): People with recommended monitoring had significantly lower HbA1c levels than incompletely monitored people (-2.4 (95% CI -2.9; -1.8) mmol/mol). SES modified monitoring-related HbA1c differences, which were significantly higher in the deprived (-3.3 (95% CI -4.3; -2.4) mmol/mol) than the intermediate category (-1.3 (95% CI -2.2; -0.4) mmol/mol)., Conclusions: Within a structured diabetes care setting, socioeconomic status is not associated with recommended monitoring. Socioeconomic differences in the association between recommended monitoring and HbA1c levels advocate further exploration of practice and patient-related factors contributing to appropriate monitoring and for care adjustment to population needs., (© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective . With depression being present in approximately 20% of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), we expect equally frequent prescription of antidepressants, anxiolytics, and hypnotics. Nevertheless, prescription data in people with T2DM is missing and the effect of depression on glycaemic control is contradictory. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of antidepressants, anxiolytics, and/or hypnotics use in a large, managed, primary care system cohort of people with T2DM and to determine the sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, T2DM medication, and metabolic control associated with its use. Method . The prevalence of antidepressants, anxiolytics, and/or hypnotics use in the years 2007-2012 was assessed in the Hoorn Diabetes Care System Cohort from the Netherlands. Results . From the 7016 people with T2DM, 500 people (7.1%) used antidepressants only, 456 people (6.5%) used anxiolytics and/or hypnotics only, and 254 people (3.6%) used a combination. Conclusion . We conclude that in our managed, primary care system 17% of all people with T2DM used antidepressants, anxiolytics, and/or hypnotics. Users of antidepressants, anxiolytics, and/or hypnotics were more often female, non-Caucasian, lower educated, and more often treated with insulin., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no competing interests regarding the publication of this paper.