No abstract

OBJECTIVE -Depression is common in patients with diabetes and is associated with worse treatment outcomes. Its relationship to treatment adherence, however, has not been systematically reviewed. We used meta-analysis to examine the relationship between depression and treatment nonadherence in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -We searched MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases for all studies published by June 2007 and reviewed references of published articles. Meta-analytic procedures were used to estimate the effect size r in a random effects model. Significance values, weighted effect sizes, 95% CIs, and tests of homogeneity of variance were calculated.RESULTS -Results from 47 independent samples showed that depression was significantly associated with nonadherence to the diabetes treatment regimen (z ϭ 9.97, P Ͻ 0.0001). The weighted effect size was near the medium range (r ϭ 0.21, 95% CI 0.17-0.25). Moderator analyses showed that the effect was significantly larger in studies that measured self-care as a continuous versus categorical variable (P ϭ 0.001). Effect sizes were largest for missed medical appointments and composite measures of self-care (r values ϭ 0.31, 0.29). Moderation analyses suggest that effects for most other types of self-care are also near the medium range, especially in studies with stronger methodologies.CONCLUSIONS -These findings demonstrate a significant association between depression and treatment nonadherence in patients with diabetes. Studies that used stronger methodologies had larger effects. Treatment nonadherence may represent an important pathway between depression and worse diabetes clinical outcomes.

No abstract

Psychosocial problems appear to be common among diabetic patients worldwide. Addressing these problems may improve diabetes outcomes, but providers often lack critical resources for doing so, particularly skill, time and adequate referral sources.

AimsTo examine patient and physician beliefs regarding insulin therapy and the degree to which patients adhere to their insulin regimens.MethodsInternet survey of 1250 physicians (600 specialists, 650 primary care physicians) who treat patients with diabetes and telephone survey of 1530 insulin-treated patients (180 with Type 1 diabetes, 1350 with Type 2 diabetes) in China, France, Japan, Germany, Spain, Turkey, the UK or the USA.ResultsOne third (33.2%) of patients reported insulin omission/non-adherence at least 1 day in the last month, with an average of 3.3 days. Three quarters (72.5%) of physicians report that their typical patient does not take their insulin as prescribed, with a mean of 4.3 days per month of basal insulin omission/non-adherence and 5.7 days per month of prandial insulin omission/non-adherence. Patients and providers indicated the same five most common reasons for insulin omission/non-adherence: too busy; travelling; skipped meals; stress/emotional problems; public embarrassment. Physicians reported low patient success at initiating insulin in a timely fashion and adjusting insulin doses. Most physicians report that many insulin-treated patients do not have adequate glucose control (87.6%) and that they would treat more aggressively if not for concern about hypoglycaemia (75.5%). Although a majority of patients (and physicians) regard insulin treatment as restrictive, more patients see insulin treatment as having positive than negative impacts on their lives.ConclusionsGlucose control is inadequate among insulin-treated patients, in part attributable to insulin omission/non-adherence and lack of dose adjustment. There is a need for insulin regimens that are less restrictive and burdensome with lower risk of hypoglycaemia.

Aims The second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study aimed to assess psychosocial outcomes in people with diabetes across countries for benchmarking.Methods Surveys included new and adapted questions from validated questionnaires that assess health-related quality of life, self-management, attitudes/beliefs, social support and priorities for improving diabetes care. Questionnaires were conducted online, by telephone or in person.Results Participants were 8596 adults with diabetes across 17 countries. There were significant between-country differences for all benchmarking indicators; no one country's outcomes were consistently better or worse than others. The proportion with likely depression [WHO-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5) score ≤ 28] was 13.8% (country range 6.5-24.1%). Diabetes-related distress [Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale 5 (PAID-5) score ≥ 40] was reported by 44.6% of participants (17.2-67.6%). Overall quality of life was rated 'poor' or 'very poor' by 12.2% of participants (7.6-26.1%). Diabetes had a negative impact on all aspects investigated, ranging from 20.5% on relationship with family/friends to 62.2% on physical health. Approximately 40% of participants (18.6-64.9%) reported that their medication interfered with their ability to live a normal life. The availability of person-centred chronic illness care and support for active involvement was rated as low. Following self-care advice for medication and diet was most common, and least common for glucose monitoring and foot examination, with marked country variation. Only 48.8% of respondents had participated in diabetes educational programmes/activities to help manage their diabetes.Conclusions Cross-national benchmarking using psychometrically validated indicators can help identify areas for improvement and best practices to drive changes that improve outcomes for people with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE -To examine the correlates of patient and provider attitudes toward insulin therapy.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -Data are from surveys of patients with type 2 diabetes not taking insulin (n ϭ 2,061) and diabetes care providers (nurses ϭ 1,109; physicians ϭ 2,681) in 13 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. Multiple regression analysis is used to identify correlates of attitudes toward insulin therapy among patients, physicians, and nurses.RESULTS -Patient and provider attitudes differ significantly across countries, controlling for individual characteristics. Patients rate the clinical efficacy of insulin as low and would blame themselves if they had to start insulin therapy. Self-blame is significantly lower among those who have better diet and exercise adherence and less diabetes-related distress. Patients who are not managing their diabetes well (poor perceived control, more complications, and diabetes-related distress) are significantly more likely to see insulin therapy as potentially beneficial. Most nurses and general practitioners (50 -55%) delay insulin therapy until absolutely necessary, but specialists and opinion leaders are less likely to do so. Delay of insulin therapy is significantly less likely when physicians and nurses see their patients as more adherent to medication or appointment regimens, view insulin as more efficacious, and when they are less likely to delay oral diabetes medications.CONCLUSIONS -Patient and provider resistance to insulin therapy is substantial, and for providers it is part of a larger pattern of reluctance to prescribe blood glucose-lowering medication. Interventions to facilitate timely initiation of insulin therapy will need to address factors associated with this resistance.

Aims/hypothesisAn earlier meta-analysis showed that diabetes is a risk factor for the development and/or recurrence of depression. Yet whether this risk is different for studies using questionnaires than for those relying on diagnostic criteria for depression has not been examined. This study examined the association of diabetes and the onset of depression by reviewing the literature and conducting a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies on this topic.MethodsEMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycInfo were searched for articles published up to September 2009. All studies that examined the relationship between type 2 diabetes and the onset of depression were included. Pooled relative risks were calculated using fixed and random effects models.ResultsEleven studies met our inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. Based on the pooled data, including 48,808 cases of type 2 diabetes without depression at baseline, the pooled relative risk was 1.24 (95% CI 1.09–1.40) for the random effects model. This risk was significantly higher for studies relying on diagnostic criteria of depression than for studies using questionnaires. However, this difference was no longer significant when controlled for year of publication.Conclusions/interpretationCompared with non-diabetic controls, people with type 2 diabetes have a 24% increased risk of developing depression. The mechanisms underlying this relationship are still unclear and warrant further research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00125-010-1874-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.