Search

Background and Purpose: No scales measure self-efficacy in women with Type 2 diabetes. A scale was developed and tested. Methods: Items generated, content validity index (CVI) assessed by experts, the 2-part Diabetes Self-Efficacy Scale (DSLF-I and DSLF-II) was piloted with 62 women, administered to 208 women, and then readministered to 30 women to determine initial reliability. Factor analysis was conducted for construct validity. Discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity was examined. Results: The CVI index was 98%. Cronbach's alphas were 0.88 (DSLF-I) and 0.82 (DSLF-II; pilot) and 0.87 and 0.86, respectively (main study); test-retest correlation was .60 (DSLF-I) and .69 (DSLF-II). There were 3 factors that emerged: diabetes knowledge of self-care activity, diabetes diet self-care, and diabetes medication self-care. Conclusions: The Diabetes Self-Efficacy Scale demonstrates good initial reliability and validity.Keywords: instrument development; self-efficacy; diabetes mellitus Type 2; reliability; validity; factor analysisDiabetes mellitus affects 8.3% of the population in the United States, or 25.8 million people. More than 7 million people are estimated to be undiagnosed and unaware they have the disease (Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2011). Approximately 90%-95% of persons with diabetes have Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The San Antonio Heart Study revealed a rising incidence of T2DM, with age, ethnicity, and neighborhood as significant predictors of T2DM (Burke et al., 1999).Although T2DM affects all ethnic and gender groups, there is a disparate effect. For example, African Americans are 1.6 times more likely to have diabetes than Whites and are more likely to go undiagnosed American Diabetes Association (ADA, 2005a). Complications from T2DM are also more prevalent in minority populations (Carter, Pugh, & Monterosa, 1996). In addition, diabetic women, compared to diabetic men, have a significantly higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease and suffer greater adverse outcomes (D'Arrigo, 1999; Gu, Cowie, & Harris, 1999; Howard et al., 1998; Smitherman & Reis, 1997). Further, Sowers (1998) reported that the gender protectiveness for coronary heart disease (CHD) declines in women between the ages of 50 and 59 years, and that the loss of gender protectiveness increases the risk ratio for CHD to 3.5 for women with diabetes compared to 2.4 for men with diabetes (p. 618). Koerbel and Korytkowski (2003) stated that women with diabetes not only have greater risk for cardiovascular disease but they also suffer greater adverse outcomes. They cite several factors, which increase this risk in women: poorer glycemic control, elevated blood pressure and lipids, central obesity, increased depression and lower socioeconomic status. These factors contribute to increased morbidity and health care costs for women with diabetes. These data support the need for more research into prevention, detection, and cost-effective methods to effectively manage T2DM and prevent its complications in women.Maintenance of health and prevention of diabetic complications require significant changes in lifestyle management and adherence to a therapeutic diabetic regimen. Behavior change and adherence are not only difficult but are also often inadequate to maintain recommended glycemic control (Anderson, Fitzgerald, & Oh, 1993; Skelly, Marshall, Haughey, Davis, & Dunford, 1995). The importance of participation in diabetic self-care behavior in achieving glycemic control has been demonstrated by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group (1993) for individuals with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group (1998) for individuals with T2DM. This goal is accomplished through a therapeutic alliance among clients, family, and health care providers to promote self-care behaviors and therapeutic modalities (ADA, 2005b). Self-care behaviors include a combination of changing or modifying eating habits, maintaining weight or achieving weight loss, participating in a physical exercise program, self-monitoring of blood glucose, and/or taking oral or injectable medication. …

Heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are often associated in type 2 diabetes (T2D), aggravate each other and exert synergistic effects to increase the risk of cardiac and renal events. The risks of renal worsening in HF patients and HF in CKD patients need to be evaluated to tailor preventive therapy. The recent CV and renal trials enriched our knowledge about the natural history of HF and CKD in T2D and provided evidence for the benefit of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in HF and renal decline prevention. SGLT-2is are the best choice in patients with HFrEF to improve CV prognosis and HF-related outcomes and also to prevent kidney-related outcomes, and in CKD patients to slow down renal failure and also reduce hospitalization for HF and CV death. In both situations the number of patients to treat in order to prevent such events in one patient is lower than in the general T2D population at high CV risk. GLP1-receptor agonists could be an alternative in a patient who is intolerant or has a contraindication to SGLT-2is. A tight collaboration between diabetologists, nephrologists and cardiologists should be encouraged for a holistic and effective strategy to reduce the burden of cardio-renal-metabolic interaction.

Objectives Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of peer-led self-management education in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in a low-income country (Mali). Methods We conducted an open-label randomised controlled trial. A total of 151 adults (76% women, mean age 52.5) with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c≥8%), treated in the diabetes consultation units of two secondary health centres in Bamako, were allocated to peer-led structured patient education (n = 76) or conventional care alone (n = 75). The intervention group received 1 year of culturally tailored structured patient education (3 courses of 4 sessions) delivered in the community by five trained peer educators. Both groups underwent conventional diabetes monitoring and follow-up. Primary outcome was the mean absolute change in HbA1c from baseline to 12 months. Results 177 education sessions were delivered to the intervention group. Patient attrition was 8%. From baseline to 12 months, the decrease in HbA1c levels was 1.05% (SD = 2.0; CI95%: 1.54;-0.56) in the intervention group compared with 0.15% (SD = 1.7; CI95%: -0.56; 0.26) in the control group, p = 0.006. Mean BMI change was -1.65 kg/m2 (SD = 2.5; CI95%: -2.25; -1.06) in the intervention group and +0.05 kg/m2 (SD = 3.2; CI95%: -0.71; 0.81) in the control group, p = 0.0005. Mean waist circumference decreased by 3.34 cm (SD = 9.3; CI95%: -5.56;-1.13) in the intervention group and increased by 2.65 cm (SD = 10.3; CI95%: 0.20; 5.09) in the control group, p = 0.0003. Conclusions Peer-led structured patient education delivered over 1 year to patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes in Mali yielded substantial improvements in glycaemic control and anthropometric parameters. This is of importance for the scaling up of efficient interventions in low-resource settings in the future. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01485913

International audience; BACKGROUND: This study compares annual ambulatory care expenditures per patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in France according to treatment phase and renal function status. METHODS: Records from patients with T2DM were extracted from a health insurance database. Patients were classified in subgroups, by treatment phase: oral/GLP1 monotherapy, double therapy, triple therapy or insulin therapy, and according to renal function status (identified using pharmacy, lab and consultation claims). Annual ambulatory expenditures were estimated from the national insurance perspective by year (from 2005 to 2010) and subgroup. RESULTS: The number of patients ranged from 9,682 to 11,772 between 2005 and 2010. The average annual expenditure per individual in 2010 ranged from [euro sign]3,017 (standard deviation: [euro sign]3,829) for monotherapy to [euro sign]3,609 +/- [euro sign]3,801 for triple therapy, and [euro sign]7,398 +/- [euro sign]5,487 with insulin (adjusted ratio insulin therapy/monotherapy: 2.36, p < 0.001). Similar differences between treatement stages were found in previous years. Additional costs for insulin were mainly related to nursing care (multiplied by 18.42, p < 0.001), medical devices and pharmacy costs. DM-attributable drug costs were mainly related to antidiabetic drugs (28% for monotherapy to 71% for triple therapy), but also to cardiovascular system drugs (21% for monotherapy to 51% with insulin) and nervous system drugs (up to 8% with insulin). Declining renal function was associated with an increase in expenses by 12% to 53% according to treatment stage. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ambulatory care expenditures increase with treatment escalation and declining renal function amongst patients with T2DM. Insulin therapy is associated with substantially increased costs, related to pharmacy, nursing care and medical device costs.