Search

Gérard Reach Education and Health Promotion Laboratory, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, Bobigny, Île-de-France, 93000, FranceCorrespondence: Gérard Reach, Education and Health Promotion Laboratory, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, Rue Marcel Cachin, Bobigny, Île-de-France, 93000, France, Email gerardreach@icloud.comAbstract: Patient non-adherence is a major contemporary medical issue because of its consequences in terms of frequency, morbidity and mortality, and health care costs. This article aims to propose a mechanistic model of adherence based on the tenet that non-adherence is the default option, as long-term adherence in chronic diseases requires sustained effort. The real question becomes, how is patient adherence possible? By focusing on adherent patients, the paper explains the mental mechanisms of adherence using concepts largely drawn from humanities, philosophy of mind, and behavioral economics and presents the findings of empirical studies supporting these hypotheses. The analysis first demonstrates the relationship between patient adherence and temporality and the influence of character traits. Further, it points out the importance of habit, which allows adherence to become non-intentional, thereby sparing patients’ cognitive efforts. Finally, it points out the importance of the quality of the interaction between the person with a chronic disease and the health professional. These features explain why adherence is a syndrome (the healthy adherer phenotype), separating people into those who are safe and those who are at risk of non-adherence, non-control of diabetes, and complications. The concepts presented in this article summarize 20 years of personal clinical and philosophical reflection on patient adherence. They are mainly illustrated by examples from diabetes care but can be applied to all chronic diseases. This novel model of adherence has major practical and ethical implications, explaining the importance of patient education and shared medical decision-making in chronic disease management.Keywords: adherence, intentionality, temporality, character traits, habit, trust

Elodie de Bock,1 Kevin Dolgin,2 Léa Kombargi,2 Benoit Arnould,1 Tanguy Vilcot,1 Guillaume Hubert,2 Marie-Eve Laporte,3 Lydiane Nabec,4 Gérard Reach5 1Patient Centred Outcomes, ICON plc, Lyon, France; 2Observia, Paris, France; 3IAE Paris - Sorbonne Business School, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France; 4Université Paris-Saclay, RITM (Réseaux, Innovation, Territoire et Mondialisation), Paris, France; 5Health Education and Practices Laboratory (LEPS), Sorbonne Paris-Nord University, Bobigny, FranceCorrespondence: Elodie de Bock, ICON plc, 27 rue de la Villette, Lyon, 69003, France, Tel + 33 472 13 59 81, Email Elodie.deBock@iconplc.comPurpose: The SPUR (Social, Psychological, Usage and Rational) Adherence Profiling Tool is a recently developed adaptive instrument for assessing key patient-level drivers for non-adherence. This study describes the SPUR questionnaire’s finalization and psychometric evaluation.Patients and Methods: Data were collected through an online survey among patients with type 2 diabetes included by general practitioners and diabetologists in France. The survey included four questionnaires, SPUR and three validated adherence measures: BMQ, MARS and ACCEPT. Item-level analysis and a partial credit model (PCM) were performed to refine the response option coding of SPUR items. The final item selection of SPUR was defined using a PCM and a principal component analysis (PCA). Construct validity, concurrent validity and known-groups validity were assessed on the final SPUR questionnaire.Results: A total of 245 patients (55% men, mean age of 63 years) completed the survey remotely and were included in this analysis. Refining response option coding allowed a better discrimination of patients on the latent trait. After item selection, a short, an intermediate, and a long form composed the final SPUR questionnaire. The short form will be used to screen patients for risk and then the other forms will allow the collection of further information to refine the risk assessment and decide the best levers for action. Results obtained were supportive of the construct validity of the forms. Their concurrent validity was demonstrated: moderate to high significant correlations were obtained with BMQ, MARS and ACCEPT scores. Their known-groups validity were shown with a logical pattern of higher scores obtained for patients considered non-adherent and significant differences between the scores obtained for patients considered adherent versus non-adherent.Conclusion: SPUR is a valid tool to evaluate the risk of non-adherence of patients, allowing effective intervention by providing insights into the respective individual reasons for lack of adherence.Keywords: digital questionnaire, non-adherence drivers, psychometric validation, Rasch modelling

Gérard Reach,1 Laurent Benarbia,2 Pierre-Yves Benhamou,3 Brigitte Delemer,4 Séverine Dubois,5 Didier Gouet,6 Bruno Guerci,7 Nathalie Jeandidier,8 Karim Lachgar,9 Gilles Le Pape,10 Rémy Leroy,11 Jean-Hugues Masgnaux,12 Philippe Raclet,13 Yves Reznik,14 Jean-Pierre Riveline,15,16 Pauline Schaepelynck,17 Anne Vambergue,18 Bruno Vergès19 1Health Education and Promotion Laboratory (LEPS EA 3412), Sorbonne Paris Nord University, Bobigny, France; 2Marketing Studio, Paris, France; 3Department of Endocrinology, Grenoble University Hospital; Grenoble Alpes University, INSERM U1055, LBFA, Grenoble, France; 4Service d’Endocrinologie – Diabète – Nutrition, CHU de Reims - Hôpital Robert Debré, and Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne, UFR Sciences Exactes Et Naturelles, Reims, France; 5Department of Diabetology and Endocrinology, CHU Angers, Angers, France; 6Department of Diabetology and Endocrinology, Saint Louis Hospital, La Rochelle, France; 7Department of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Nutrition, CHRU of Nancy, Brabois Hospital, and ILCV Lorraine University, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France; 8Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Nutrition, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, and Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France; 9Department of Diabetology and Endocrinology, Centre Hospitalier Simone Veil, Eaubonne, France; 10General Practice, Penmarc’h, France; 11Private Medical Practice, Endocrinology and Diabetology, Lille, France; 12M&M Conseil, Boulogne, France; 13Association Française des Diabétiques de Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France; 14Department oEndocrinology and Diabetology, CHU Côte de Nacre, Caen, and University of Caen Basse-Normandie, Medical School, Caen, France; 15Department of Diabetology and Endocrinology, Lariboisière Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France; 16Unité INSERM U1138 Immunity and Metabolism in Diabetes, ImMeDiab Team, Centre de Recherches des Cordeliers, and Université de Paris, Paris, France; 17Department of Nutrition-Endocrinology-Metabolic Diseases, Pôle ENDO, APHM-Hôpital la Conception, Marseille, France; 18Department of Diabetology, Endocrinology, Metabolism and Nutrition, CHU Lille, and University Hospital European Genomic Institute for Diabetes, Lille, France; 19Department of Endocrinology-Diabetology,CHU Dijon, and University of Burgundy, INSERM LNC UMR1231, Dijon, FranceCorrespondence: Gérard Reach, Health Education and Promotion Laboratory (LEPS EA 3412), Sorbonne Paris Nord University, 74 Rue Marcel Cachin, Bobigny Cedex, 93017, France, Tel + 33 (0)6 60 84 53 25, Email gerardreach@icloud.comBackground: Support programs are provided to people with diabetes to help them manage their disease. However, adherence to and persistence in support programs are often low, making it difficult to demonstrate their effectiveness.Aim: To identify the determinants of patients’ perceived interest in diabetes support programs because it may be a powerful determinant of effective participation in such programs.Patients and Methods: An online study conducted in April 2021 in metropolitan France on 600 people with diabetes recruited from a consumer panel. A 64-item psychosocial questionnaire including a question asking to evaluate the helpfulness of a support program was used. Univariate, multivariate, and multiple correspondence analyses were performed.Results: The existence of a typology, known as Unsafe/Safe, was discovered, in which patients with type 2 diabetes respond in two distinct ways. Type U (unsafe) patients, who believe that a support program would be helpful, are more likely to be nonadherent to their treatment, have high hemoglobin A1c levels, have at least one diabetic complication, lack information regarding their disease and treatment, rate the burden of their disease and impairment of their quality of life as high, worry about their future, and are pessimistic. Type S (safe) patients have the opposite characteristics. Type U patients can be dichotomized into two broad classes: one in which they lack information regarding disease and treatment and the other in which alterations in the quality of life and burden of the disease predominate. Insulin-treated patients give more importance to the lack of information, whereas noninsulin-treated patients complain primarily about the burden of the disease and impairment of quality of life.Conclusion: This study describes this new U/S typology, proposes a simple method based on a nine-item questionnaire to identify type U patients by calculating a Program Helpfulness Score described herein, and clarifies the nature of the intervention to be provided to them. This novel approach could be applied to other chronic diseases.Keywords: type 2 diabetes, adherence, support programs, typology, personality traits, clinical outcomes, patients’ expectations

Gérard Reach,1 Laurent Benarbia,2 Eric Bruckert,3 Jean-Philippe Kevorkian,4 Michel Farnier,5,6 Jean-Jacques Mourad,7 Bernard-Charles Vaisse8 1Health Education and Practices Laboratory (LEPS), Sorbonne Paris-Nord University, Bobigny, France; 2Marketing Studio, Paris, France; 3Department of Endocrinology and Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases, Institute of Cardiometabolism and Nutrition (ICAN), La Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France; 4Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Lariboisière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris University, Paris, 75010, France; 5PEC2, EA 7460, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France; 6Cardiology Department, University Hospital Centre of Dijon Bourgogne, Dijon, France; 7Department of Internal Medicine and ESH Excellence Centre, Groupe Hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph, Paris, France; 8Hypertension Unit -Vascular Medicine, Department of Cardiology, CHU Timone, Marseille, FranceCorrespondence: Gérard ReachHealth Education and Practices Laboratory (LEPS), Sorbonne Paris-Nord University, 74 rue Marcel Cachin, Bobigny, 93017, FranceTel +33 6 60 84 53 25Email gerardreach@icloud.comPurpose: Some patients make a rational choice not to follow medical prescriptions; others fail to take their medications for reasons beyond their control, such as mere forgetfulness or a weak medication routine. The aim of this study was to elucidate the functioning of patient intentionality in medication adherence.Patients and Methods: This online study was conducted in metropolitan France in 2019. A cross-sectional survey of 50 questions was conducted with 3001 respondents diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, and/or hypercholesterolemia identified from a panel of 54,000 people. These questions included a validated six-item questionnaire to detect nonadherence, two questions to detect intentional nonadherence by patients, and three questions on the effects of habit. Our questionnaire also included questions on the feelings of respondents regarding their doctor’s attitude to their problems and needs, their trust in general practitioners (GP) and specialists, their sense of being involved in treatment decisions, and the influence of side effects and habits on patients’ adherence. This study used the strategy of focusing on strictly adherent patients in the hope of finding ways to improve adherence. For this reason, we defined adherence as the absence of a positive response to the 6-item nonadherence screening questionnaire.Results: Of 3001 respondents, 1804 were diagnosed with hypertension, 1458 with hypercholesterolemia, and 774 with diabetes. Of the total number of patients, 72% were afflicted with one disease, 21% with two ailments, and 7% with three simultaneous illnesses. One-third (33%) of the patients did not tender a positive answer to the adherence questionnaire and were deemed adherent. 1) Thirty-two percent of the patients reported occasionally omitting their medication deliberately, and 84% said they had a reason for missing doses. These statements suggesting intentional nonadherence were negatively associated with adherence as identified via multivariate analysis (P = 0.0012 and P < 0.0001, for the first and second statement, respectively). 2) Univariate analyses revealed strong associations (P < 0.0001) between strict adherence on one hand and lack of intentional nonadherence, patient age, absence of drug side effects, taking drugs by habit, feeling involved in treatment decisions, getting information about treatment, and disease, and trust in doctors, on the other hand. 3) Specifically, univariate analysis of the absence of reported side effects revealed strong associations (P < 0.0001) with adequate information about medicines and diseases and trust in GP. These original data were consistent with the concept of the nocebo effect. 4) We observed a strong association between the absence of intentional nonadherence (statement of never deliberately missing medication) and respondent statements about generally sticking to the routine (P < 0.0001), ie, “I take my medication because I am used to taking it.” This important result suggests that patients are strictly adherent in two ways: the absence of intentional nonadherence and reliance on habit, which we term as “unintentional adherence.” 5) Finally, a multiple correspondence analysis illustrated all statistically significant relationships found in this study.Conclusion: We present a new global model of adherence in which patient adherence was improved both by reducing intentional nonadherence and by promoting the abovementioned unintentional adherence by habit. This model highlights the role of shared decision-making and the trust felt by patients in their doctors. These results could exert a major impact on medical practice and education by demonstrating the importance of physicians’ attitudes, involving the patient in decisions (shared decision-making), offering information about medicines and diseases (patient education), understanding the problems of patients, and taking their needs into account (empathy). The development of these attitudes should be an important aspect of the medical curricula.Keywords: adherence; intentionality; intentional; unintentional, doctor-patient relationship, shared medical decision, trust, habit, side effects of drugs

Gérard Reach,1,2 Gaëlle Chenuc,3 Pascal Maigret,4 Isabelle Elias-Billon,4 Luc Martinez,5 René-Marc Flipo6 1Department for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, Avicenne Hospital, APHP, Bobigny, France; 2Health Education and Practices Laboratory (LEPS, EA 3412), Paris 13 University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny, France; 3Capionis Research, Bordeaux, France; 4Medical Department, Menarini, Rungis, France; 5Family Practice, La Rochelle, France; 6Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital, Lille, FranceCorrespondence: Gérard ReachDirection Qualité, Hôpital Avicenne, APHP, 125 Route de Stalingrad, Bobigny 93000, FranceTel +33 6 60 84 53 25Email gerard.reach@aphp.frObjective: Various aspects of nonadherence to therapy (including medication and lifestyle nonadherence) often appear together. Here we report the association between treatment adherence in gout and the two character traits of patience and obedience, which may explain this observation.Methods: Data were collected from a cross-sectional study conducted in a French cohort of 1441 adult patients. Patience was assessed using the choice between receiving €1500 in 1 year or €500 immediately. Obedience was evaluated with a single question assessing the use of the seatbelt in the rear seat of a car. Adherence to recommendations for medication, beverage, food and physical activity and smoking status was assessed using self-report questionnaires.Results: Patience and obedience were strong determinants of adherence to medication in multivariate analysis (OR 2.056, 95% CI [1.414–2.989], P< 0.001; OR 1.844, 95% CI [1.273–2.671], P=0.001). In univariate analysis, adherence to medication was also associated with compliance with dietary directives (P

Gérard Reach,1,2 Marouane Boubaya,3 Yoann Brami,1 Vincent Lévy3,4 1Department for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, Avicenne Hospital, APHP, Bobigny, France; 2EA 3412, Health Education and Practices Laboratory (LEPS), Paris 13 University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny, France; 3Clinical Research Unit and Clinical Research Center, Avicenne Hospital, APHP, Bobigny, France; 4INSERM UMR 1153 (Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics, Sorbonne Paris Cité), ECSTRRA team (Epidemiology and Clinical Statistics for Tumor, Respiratory, and Ressuscitation Assessments), Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, FranceObjective: Patients’ non-adherence to medical prescriptions is a crucial issue in contemporary medicine because it can jeopardize care efficacy. Non-adherence is especially frequent in patients with chronic diseases. In this article, we propose that a particular condition, which we call disruption in time projection, is a cause of non-adherence to medication therapies in chronic diseases.Methods: A questionnaire was administered to 120 hospitalized people with type 2 diabetes addressing three psychological constructs defining time projection: patience/impatience in a fictive monetary scenario (preferring to receive €1,500 in 1 year or €500 today), magnitude of temporal horizon (greater or lesser ability to imagine future events) and perception of the degree of physical similarity of current self to self at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years from the present. In addition, the questionnaire evaluated adherence to medication, social deprivation and depression.Results: In the multivariate analyses, two factors were associated with adherence to medication: patience (P

Gérard Reach1,2 1Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, Avicenne Hospital AP-HP, 2EA 3412, Centre de Recherche en Nutrition Humaine Ile-de-France (CRNH-IDF), Paris 13 University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny, France Abstract: Patient education (PE) is expected to help patients with a chronic disease to manage their lives and give them the possibility of adopting, in an appropriate manner, beneficial changes in health behaviors that are prescribed by their physicians. It is aimed at delineating, agreeing on, and implementing a patient’s personal action plan and is therefore an essential constituent of the person-centered model of care. The aim of this article is to examine the idea that PE may sometimes be a manipulation that is organized for the good of patients in a paternalistic framework. Theoretically, PE differs from manipulation by addressing the reflective intelligence of patients in full light and helping them make autonomous choices. In this article, we examined some analogies between PE and nudge (ie, techniques used to push people to make good choices by organizing their environment). This analysis suggests that PE is not always as transparent and reflective as it is supposed to be and that unmasking these issues may be useful for improving the ethical quality of educational practice that must be performed in a framework of a trusting patient–doctor relationship. Under this condition, PE may sometimes represent a form of persuasion without being accused of patient deception and manipulation: trust is therefore the core of the person-centered model of care. Keywords: patient education, adherence, autonomy, nudge, persuasion, manipulation, deception, trust, person-centered care model, shared decision-making

Gérard Reach1,2 1Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, Avicenne Hospital AP-HP, 2EA 3412, Centre de Recherche en Nutrition Humaine Ile-de-France (CRNH-IDF), Paris 13 University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny, France Abstract: According to the concept developed by Thomas Kuhn, a scientific revolution occurs when scientists encounter a crisis due to the observation of anomalies that cannot be explained by the generally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made: a scientific revolution can therefore be described as a change in paradigm aimed at solving a crisis. Described herein is an application of this concept to the medical realm, starting from the reflection that during the past decades, the medical community has encountered two anomalies that, by their frequency and consequences, represent a crisis in the system, as they deeply jeopardize the efficiency of care: nonadherence of patients who do not follow the prescriptions of their doctors, and clinical inertia of doctors who do not comply with good practice guidelines. It is proposed that these phenomena are caused by a contrast between, on the one hand, the complex thought of patients and doctors that sometimes escapes rationalization, and on the other hand, the simplification imposed by the current paradigm of medicine dominated by the technical rationality of evidence-based medicine. It is suggested therefore that this crisis must provoke a change in paradigm, inventing a new model of care defined by an ability to take again into account, on an individual basis, the complex thought of patients and doctors. If this overall analysis is correct, such a person-centered care model should represent a solution to the two problems of patients’ nonadherence and doctors’ clinical inertia, as it tackles their cause. These considerations may have important implications for the teaching and the practice of medicine. Keywords: person-centered medicine, nonadherence, clinical inertia, complexity, abduction, paradigm, revolution, evidence-based medicine

Gérard Reach,1 Denis Fompeyrine,2 Carole Mularski21Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, Avicenne Hospital APHP and EA 3412, CRNH-IdF, Paris 13 University, Bobigny, France; 2Direction des Patients, Usagers et Associations, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, FranceObjective: Time spent in hospitals is complex and entails a number of distinct phases that fluctuate depending on many variables. Attempts to understand patients’ experiences often involve focusing on their needs using self-evaluation, but this does not clearly highlight the complexity of coping. Questionnaires based on telephone surveys and emails do not facilitate a sufficient assessment of the coping effort. However, when patients express themselves through spontaneous narration, different dimensions may emerge in their experience at the hospital. This qualitative study explores the various forms of coping among patients with a hospital experience.Methods: Interviews were conducted with 75 patients in six hospital departments. Transcripts from interviews were thematically analyzed and a conceptual, multidimensional model was developed to explain the relationship between patient experience and coping complexity.Results: Patients used a set of about 50 different terms to describe their experiences in the hospital. They described with the greatest number of words the aspects that triggered their stress or distress and forced them to cope. Stress resulting from the experienced situation was classifiable into five dimensions: trauma, environment, medical, interpersonal affective, and social impact, which constitute invariants that may require individual complex coping strategies.Conclusion: Patient experience is hard to evaluate, and this represents a permanent challenge for medical teams. Considering the five coping dimensions delineated in this study may be helpful in improving the patient’s hospital experience.Keywords: patient experience, stress, biopsychosocial model

Gérard Reach,1,2 Silla M Consoli,3,4 Serge Halimi,5 Claude Colas,6 Martine Duclos,7–9 Pierre Fontaine,10 Caroline Martineau,11 Carole Avril,12 Catherine Tourette-Turgis,13 Sylvie Pucheu,4 Olivier Brunet14 1Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, Avicenne Hospital, Bobigny, 2EA 3412, CRNH-IDF, Paris 13 University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny, 3Paris Descartes University, Paris Sorbonne Cité, Faculty of Medicine, Paris, 4University Service of Adult and Elderly Psychiatry, European Georges-Pompidou Hospital, Paris, 5Department of Diabetology, Endocrinology and Nutrition, Joseph Fourier University and CHU Grenoble, Grenoble, 6Department of Diabetology, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Paris, 7Department of Sport Medicine and Functional Explorations, Montpied Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, 8Department of Human Nutrition, Centre de Recherche en Nutrition Humaine, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Clermont-Ferrand, 9Department of Human Nutrition, University of Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, 10Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, Huriez Hospital, Lille 2 University, Lille, 11Department of Dietetics, Larrey Hospital, CHU Toulouse, 12French Diabetics Federation, Paris, 13UPMC-Sorbonne Universités, Paris, 14General practitioner, Seraincourt, France Aim: The second Diabetes, Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2™) multinational cross-sectional study was aimed at generating insights to facilitate innovative efforts by people with diabetes (PWD), family members (FMs), and health care professionals (HCPs) to improve self-management and psychosocial support in diabetes. Here, the French data from the DAWN2™ study are described.Methods: In France, 500 PWD (80 with type 1 diabetes [T1] and 420 with type 2 diabetes [T2]), 120 FMs, and 288 HCPs were recruited. The questionnaires assessed the impact of diabetes on quality of life and mood, self-management, attitudes/beliefs, and care/support.Results: Diabetes negatively impacted the emotional well-being of 59% of people with T1 versus 45% of people with T2 (P

Gérard Reach Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolic Diseases, Avicenne Hospital AP-HP, and EA 3412, CRNH-IdF, Paris 13 University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny, France Abstract: The application of the principle of autonomy, which is considered a cornerstone of contemporary bioethics, is sometimes in obvious contradiction with the principle of beneficence. Indeed, it may happen in chronic care that the preferences of the health care provider (HCP), who is largely focused on the prevention of long term complications of diseases, differ from those, more present oriented, preferences of the patient. The aims of this narrative review are as follows: 1) to show that the exercise of autonomy by the patient is not always possible; 2) where the latter is not possible, to examine how, in the context of the autonomy principle, someone (a HCP) can decide what is good (a treatment) for someone else (a patient) without falling into paternalism. Actually this analysis leads to a paradox: not only is the principle of beneficence sometimes conflicting with the principle of autonomy, but physician's beneficence may enter into conflict with the mere respect of the patient; and 3) to propose a solution to this paradox by revisiting the very concepts of the autonomous person, patient education, and trust in the patient–physician relationship: this article provides an ethical definition of patient education. Keywords: preference, autonomy, person, reflexivity, empathy, sympathy, patient education, trust, respect, care

Gérard Reach,1 Véronique Le Pautremat,2 Shaloo Gupta31Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolic Diseases, Avicenne Hospital APHP, and EA 3412, CRNH-IdF, Paris 13 University, Sorbonnne Paris Cité, Bobigny, France; 2Kantar Health, Paris, France; 3Kantar Health, Princeton, NJ, USABackground: The aim of the study was to identify the intrinsic patient characteristics and extrinsic environmental factors predicting prescription and use and, more specifically, early initiation (up to 5 years of disease duration) of insulin for type 2 diabetes in France. A secondary objective was to evaluate the impact of insulin therapy on mental and physical quality of life and patient adherence.Methods: The data used in this study were derived from the 2008, 2010, and 2011 France National Health and Wellness Survey. This survey is an annual, cross-sectional, self-administered, Internet-based questionnaire among a nationwide representative sample of adults (aged 18 years or older). Of the total of 45,958 persons recruited in France, 1,933 respondents (deduped) were identified as diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. All unique respondents from the three waves, currently using insulin or oral bitherapy or tritherapy at the time of assessment, were included in this analysis.Results: Early (versus late) initiation of insulin therapy was 9.9 times more likely to be prescribed by an endocrinologist or diabetologist than by a primary care physician (P < 0.0001). Younger age at diagnosis and current smoking habits were significant predictors of early (versus late) insulin initiation (odds ratio [OR] 1.031, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.005–1.059, P = 0.0196, and OR 2.537, 95% CI 1.165–5.524, P = 0.0191, respectively). Patients with a yearly income ≥€50,000 were less likely to be put on insulin early (P = 0.0399). A link between insulin prescription and complications was shown only in univariate analysis. Mental quality of life was lower in patients on early (versus late) insulin, but only in patients with diabetes-related complications. Insulin users (versus oral bitherapy or tritherapy users) had 3.0 times greater odds of being adherent than uncontrolled oral bitherapy or tritherapy users (OR 2.983, 95% CI 1.37–6.495, P = 0.0059).Conclusion: This study confirms the role of specialists in early initiation of insulin, and the data presented herein reflect the fact that early initiation is more frequent in younger patients, patients with diabetes-related complications, and current smokers, and less frequent in patients with a higher income. Moreover, we observed that being treated with insulin was not associated with deterioration in quality of life, and insulin-treated patients were more often adherent than uncontrolled oral bitherapy or tritherapy users. These data suggest that doctors' concerns about patient adherence and detrimental effects on quality of life should not be a barrier to their decision regarding early initiation of insulin therapy. Due to the nature of this cross-sectional survey (eg, inability to assess treatment flow), further research is needed to confirm its findings.Keywords: type 2 diabetes, early insulin initiation, quality of life, adherence, psychological insulin resistance, clinical inertia

Gérard Reach Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolic Diseases, Avicenne Hospital APHP, and EA 3412, CRNH-IdF, Paris 13 University, Bobigny, France Objective: To clarify the mechanisms of adherence. Methods: A cross-sectional, multicenter French study using a self-questionnaire administered by 116 general practitioners to 782 obese type 2 diabetic patients. Results: The analysis of 670 completed questionnaires revealed a strong association between the adherence to medication and the behavior of fastening the seatbelt when seated in the rear of a car. Multivariate analysis indicated that this behavior was an independent determinant of adherence to medication (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4–3.6, P < 0.001) with the same OR as the motivation to adhere to medical prescriptions (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3–3.6, P = 0.003) in a model with good accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.774). A multiple correspondence analysis suggested that adherence to medication and seatbelt behavior are “homologous” behaviors, with homology between phenomena defined by the fact that they share a common etiology. Conclusion: Adherence may have two dimensions: passive (obedience, the main determinant of seatbelt behavior) and active (motivation). This conclusion has theoretical and practical implications. Firstly, empowerment through patient education can be defined as a process that replaces the passive mechanism of adherence in patients’ minds with an active, conscious choice. Secondly, recognizing these two dimensions may help to establish a tailored patient-physician relationship to prevent nonadherence. Keywords: adherence, compliance, motivation, obedience, reactance, patience, seatbelt, medication