Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) have a central role in managing their disease, but the effective adoption of self-management behaviours is often challenging. Objectives: The main objective of this study was to assess the facilitators, barriers and expectations in the self-management of type 2 DM, as perceived by patients. Methods: Patients with type 2 DM were recruited at the Portuguese Diabetes Association outpatient clinic, using a convenient sampling technique. Qualitative data was obtained using video-recorded focus groups. Each session had a moderator and an observer, and followed a pre-tested questioning route. Two independent researchers transcribed and analysed the focus groups. Results: Three major themes were identified: diet, physical exercise, and glycaemic control. Difficulties in changing dietary habits were grouped in four main categories: decisional, food quality, food quantity, and dietary schedule. Barriers related to physical exercise also included decisional aspects, as well as fatigue, muscle and joint pain, and other co-morbidities. Information and knowledge translation, as well as family and social ties, were commonly explored aspects across the three themes and were regarded as facilitators in some situations and as barriers in others. Conclusion:This study provided new insight on the barriers, facilitators and expectations in type 2 DM self-management, pointing out the importance of tailored guidance. Future research should explore interventions designed to promote and facilitate behaviour change in this population.

Highlights A 1-hour plasma glucose (1-h PG) threshold >155 mg/dl (8.6 mmol/L) during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) may be a suitable biomarker for identifying normal glucose tolerant (NGT) individuals at risk for future type 2 diabetes (T2D). A one-hour, non-fasting, 50g Glucose Challenge Test (GCT) performed during a routine health care visit has potential for practical screening of glucose disorders. The shape of the glucose curve reflects the cumulative effect of insulin sensitivity and response on glucose concentrations with prospective studies warranted to evaluate its prognostic utility. The continuous glucose monitor (CGM) has facilitated insight into the pathophysiology of prediabetes and phenotypes of T2D and holds promise for detecting glycemic disorders. Metabolomic profiling including amino acids, lipids, carbohydrates and other metabolites may be useful for early diagnosis of glycemic disorders. Non-classical markers for assessing glycemic disorders including fructosamine, glycated albumin, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol that evaluate shorter periods of glucose exposure than HbA1c have potential use as adjunctive tools.

No abstract

Aims To evaluate the impact of one‐year high intensity interval training (HIIT) combined with resistance training (RT) vs continuous moderate intensity training (MCT) combined with RT on glycaemic control, body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Materials and Methods A randomized controlled trial included 96 participants with type 2 diabetes for a one‐year supervised exercise intervention with three groups: Control, HIIT with RT and MCT with RT). The control group received standard counseling regarding general PA guidelines, with no structured exercise sessions. The main outcome variable was HbA1c (%). Secondary outcomes were other glycaemic variables, body composition, anthropometry measurements, CRF and enjoyment of exercise. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to model outcomes. Results Among the 96 participants enrolled in the intervention, 80 were randomized, with a mean (SD) age of 58.5 years (7.7) and a mean HbA1c of 7.2% (1.6). After adjusting the model for sex and total moderate‐to‐vigorous physical activity (MVPA), we found that both the MCT with RT (β, 0.003; P, 0.921) and the HIIT with RT (β, 0.025; P, 0.385) groups had no effect on HbA1c. A favourable effect was observed in the MCT with RT group, with a reduction in whole body fat index (β, −0.062; P, 0.022), android fat index (β, −0.010; P, 0.010) and gynoid fat index (β, −0.013; P, 0.014). Additionally, CRF increased during the intervention, but only in the MCT with RT group (β, 0.185; P, 0.019). Conclusions The results from this study suggest that there was no effect of either MCT with RT or HIIT with RT on glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes. However, the combination of MCT and RT improved body composition and CRF following a one‐year intervention.