Adherence to Regimens and Glycemic Control of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Attending a Tertiary Hospital Clinic

Abstract

This cross-sectional study is aimed to measure the prevalence of patient adherence to treatment regimens and factors affecting glycemic control among Type 2 diabetes patients. 243 diabetes patients seeking care at a tertiary hospital diabetic clinic in Bangkok were interviewed. HbA1c was used as an index of glycemic control. The proportions of cases with good adherence to physical exercise and diet regimen were 31.7 and 54.3%, respectively. About 46.5% reported receiving good social support for diabetes from his/her family. The median of HbA1c was 8% (normal range 4.7-6.3%). Approximately 33.3% achieved good glycemic control (HbAlc < or =7%), while 50.2% had poor control (HbAlc >8%). Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated two variables were significantly associated with glycemic control: adherence to diet control and exercise. Interactive health education should be introduced to increase patient adherence to treatment regimens. Family members should be informed about their important roles in encouraging patients' glycemic control.

Diabetes Self-Efficacy Strongly Influences Actual Control of Diabetes in Patients Attending a Tertiary Hospital in India

“…Adherence to dietary restrictions and diet plans was also related to improved diabetes control. Similar findings were reported by Howteerakul et al [13] who reported that adherence to diet control and exercise were significantly associated with glycemic control. Another study by Matsushita et al [25] found that patients who were able to estimate their energy intake reasonably well had better glycemic control.…”

Physical Activity and Reported Barriers to Activity Among Type 2 Diabetic Patients in the United Arab Emirates

“…These findings were consistent with studies performed in other parts of the world [18,[25][26][27]. In our study population, outdoor walking was the most commonly reported physical activity, and is consistent with previous reports [28,29].…”

Social support and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review of observational studies

“…Five studies used more than one measure to assess social support [42,43,45,46,48]. Eight studies assessed support specific to diabetes care [27,30,32,35,36,40,44,46] and two studies used measures of social support specific to chronic disease [26,29]. We did not separate results into functional and structural support due to heterogeneity in measurements of social support.…”

“…Measures of social support were varied, with little overlap across studies. The most frequently used measures were multidimensional assessments of social support (measures that assessed more than one component of social support) (n = 16) [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. Of these, 13 studies generated a composite measure of social support and 3 studies separated analysis by social support type [37][38][39].…”

“…No associations were observed in 9 studies when measuring social support using the following measures: Social Support Scale for Patients with chronic disease [29], adapted questions from the Diabetes Care Profile [35], The Social Support Survey [25] the Social Support Scale modified from the Michigan Diabetes Care Profile [27] or The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) [31].…”