Objective The overall rate of obesity is rising in the USA; this is also reflected in the military population. It is important that providers appropriately diagnose obesity and discuss treatment options with their patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate diagnosis of obesity compared to documented body mass index (BMI) in the military health system. Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained by the 59th Medical Wing (Lackland Air Force Base, Texas) as an exempt study. This study included active duty military service members aged 18-65 years who sought outpatient care at a military treatment facility from September 2013 to August 2018 with a weight within the range of 31.8-226.8 kg and height between 121.9 and 215.9 cm. Data were collected from the Clinical Data Repository vitals and M2 encounter data to determine the percentage of each sub-population with a diagnosis of obesity according to BMI (≥30 kg/m2) and International Classification of Diseases diagnosis codes. Results Using BMI, 19.2% of female and 26.8% of male service members can be diagnosed with obesity; however, only 42.2% and 35.1%, respectively, with a BMI ≥30 was diagnosed as such. This discrepancy was consistent among all service branches and BMI ranges. Conclusion This study demonstrates that obesity is underdiagnosed compared to BMI. This may result in insufficient resources being provided to patients to reduce weight. Further investigation is warranted to identify causes of underdiagnosis and potential barriers to diagnosis.

Rationale: Since there are only 33 endocrinologists within the Department of Defence and over 150 000 beneficiaries with diabetes, most patients with diabetes will be treated by primary care providers (PCPs). Comprehensive diabetes care visits are extensive and the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) routinely change; thus, providing current evidence-based care is difficult. Most professional development courses aim to update PCPs on CPGs but are often inadequate as they focus on only the PCPs (not the interdisciplinary team) without a plan to implement changes into practice. Objective: To evaluate the biannual (twice yearly), 3-day, interprofessional Diabetes Champion Course (DCC) developed by the US Air Force Diabetes Center of Excellence on comprehensive diabetes care.Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate three iterations of the DCC course (Sept 2014-Sept 2015. Quantitatively, pre-course and post-course surveys were used to obtain impact on knowledge, skills, and intention to change clinical practice. Qualitatively, semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with participants to obtain benefits to their clinic related to attending the DCC and barriers to implementation of the CPG process improvement project.Results: Twelve of 19 responding clinics (63%) reported implementing all or part of their original CPG project developed at the DCC, and 17 of 19 clinics (89%) reported improvements associated with attending the DCC. Post-course surveys, from on location participants, revealed significant improvements in knowledge (P < 0.01). Likewise, foot exam skills and ability to demonstrate glucose meters to patients improved. Even with high pre-course confidence, 97% of providers reported acquiring new knowledge about prescribing and titrating insulin. Conclusion:The DCC is innovative as it employs a team-based, interprofessional, didactic, and interactive approach that is effective in improving knowledge, skills, and intention to change clinical practice, which should translate to better care for patients with diabetes.

Background: American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends psychosocial assessment for people with diabetes, including diabetes-related distress. Elevated diabetes-related distress is associated with poor selfmanagement, lower medication adherence, and poorer quality of life. Insulin delivery methods are multiple daily injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Because people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) require comprehensive insulin therapy to manage blood glucose, we explored the association of insulin delivery methods and diabetes distress in this group. Methods: The U.S. Air Force Diabetes Center of Excellence (DCOE), a specialty clinic for adults who are Military Health System beneficiaries, administers the validated 17-item Diabetes-related Distress Scale (DDS-17) as part of standard care. Patient data were analyzed from June 2015 to August 2016 using SPSS version 22.Patients were free to choose the method of insulin delivery with minimal or no additional cost. Results: There were 203 patients with T1DM who completed the DDS-17 as part of standard care during the time period. Patients were categorized as CSII (57.6%) or MDI (42.4%). Women were significantly more likely to choose MDI over CSII than men (P = 0.003). DDS-17 scores were low in both groups, and there were no significant differences in DDS-17 by insulin delivery method. Furthermore, no significant differences were found in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between CSII (7.9% or 63 mmol/mol) and MDI (8.1% or 65 mmol/mol) users (P = 0.22) and no significant differences in body mass index (BMI) between patients using CSII (M = 28.33 kg/m 2 ) and MDI (28.49 kg/m 2 ) users (P = 0.15). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that if patients are relatively free to choose the insulin delivery method (minimal or no financial constraints), there were no differences in diabetes distress scores, HbA1c, or BMI between CSII and MDI. Therefore, people with T1DM may benefit from choosing the method of insulin delivery that will enable them to achieve individual goals and manage diabetes-related distress.