Aims The second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study sought cross-national comparisons of perceptions on healthcare provision for benchmarking and sharing of clinical practices to improve diabetes care.Methods In total, 4785 healthcare professionals caring for people with diabetes across 17 countries participated in an online survey designed to assess diabetes healthcare provision, self-management and training.Results Between 61.4 and 92.9% of healthcare professionals felt that people with diabetes needed to improve various self-management activities; glucose monitoring (range, 29.3-92.1%) had the biggest country difference, with a between-country variance of 20%. The need for a major improvement in diabetes self-management education was reported by 60% (26.4-81.4%) of healthcare professionals, with a 12% between-country variance. Provision of diabetes services differed among countries, with many healthcare professionals indicating that major improvements were needed across a range of areas, including healthcare organization [30.6% (7.4-67.1%)], resources for diabetes prevention [78.8% (60.4-90 Conclusions This survey has highlighted concerns of healthcare professionals relating to diabetes healthcare provision, self-management and training. Identifying between-country differences in several areas will allow benchmarking and sharing of clinical practices.
Despite increasingly stringent clinical practice guidelines for glycaemic control, the implementation of recommendations has been disappointing, with over 60% of patients not reaching recommended glycaemic goals. As a result, current management of glycaemia falls significantly short of accepted treatment goals. The Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management has identified a number of major barriers that can prevent individuals from achieving their glycaemic targets. This article proposes 10 key practical recommendations to aid healthcare providers in overcoming these barriers and to enable a greater proportion of patients to achieve glycaemic goals. These include advice on targeting the underlying pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes, treating early and effectively with combination therapies, adopting a holistic, multidisciplinary approach and improving patient understanding of type 2 diabetes. Implementation of these recommendations should reduce the risk of diabetes-related complications, improve patient quality of life and impact more effectively on the increasing healthcare cost related to diabetes.
Limited medication adherence and persistence with treatment are barriers to successful management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Register of Controlled Trials, PsychINFO and CINAHL for observational and interventional studies that compared the adherence or persistence associated with 2 or more glucose-lowering medications in people with T2D. Where 5 or more studies provided the same comparison, a random-effects meta-analysis was performed, reporting mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) for adherence or persistence, depending on the pooled study outcomes. We included a total of 48 studies. Compared with metformin, adherence (%) was better for sulphonylureas (5 studies; MD 10.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.5-14.7) and thiazolidinediones (TZDs; 6 studies; MD 11.3%, 95% CI 2.7%-20.0%). Adherence to TZDs was marginally better than adherence to sulphonylureas (5 studies; MD 1.5%, 95% CI 0.1-2.9). Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors had better adherence than sulphonylureas and TZDs. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists had higher rates of discontinuation than long-acting analogue insulins (6 studies; OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.17-3.27). Long-acting insulin analogues had better persistence than human insulins (5 studies; MD 43.1 days; 95% CI 22.0-64.2). The methods used to define adherence and persistence were highly variable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.