First results from the study ‘Disease knowledge and information needs – Diabetes mellitus (2017)’

Abstract

Very little research has been undertaken into what people in Germany know about diabetes, the information they may require about the condition, where they look for such information and how they rate the information currently available. In 2017, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) carried out a nationwide telephone survey aimed at answering these questions. The study entitled ‘Disease knowledge and information needs - Diabetes mellitus (2017)’ focused on people aged at least 18 years. A total of 2,327 people without diabetes and 1,479 people with diagnosed diabetes were interviewed for the study. First results show that 56.7% of people without diabetes and 92.8% of those with diabetes rate their knowledge about the condition as ‘very good’ or ‘good’. People without diabetes were found to have the strongest need for information in terms of ‘lifestyle changes, health promotion and disease prevention’, whereas respondents with diabetes stressed the strongest need for information about ‘treatment and therapy’. Almost a third of respondents without diabetes have actively sought information about diabetes at least once, mostly via print media. Patients with diabetes stated that their general practitioner was their most frequent source of information about the condition. In both groups, about half of respondents reported that they found it difficult to judge the trustworthiness of the information published in the media about diabetes. The results of the study form part of the German National Diabetes Surveillance, which is coordinated by the RKI. The data are also intended to be used by the Federal Centre for Health Education to develop a strategy to improve the information provided about diabetes.

Structured diabetes self-management education and its association with perceived diabetes knowledge, information, and disease distress: Results of a nationwide population-based study

“…All estimates were weighted to compensate for potential deviations between the diabetic sample in the present study and the diabetic reference population obtained from the study "German Health Update" (GEDA) 2012 in terms of sex, age and education structure. Further details of the weighting procedure are described elsewhere [37].…”

“…The second part applied a direct screening procedure for persons with diagnosed diabetes within a separate dual-frame sample, which comprised 1216 participants with a self-reported diabetes diagnosis. Details of participant sampling and questionnaire design are described elsewhere [36,37].…”

“…However, since DSME is context-specific, these results cannot be readily generalized to the German population. Yet empirical findings based on nationwide data for Germany are still rare [4,36,37]. Given the scarcity of published German studies on this subject, the aim of the present study is to examine the association of DSME-participation with perceived level of information about diabetes, information needs, sources of information, and disease distress of people with diabetes.…”

Physical Activity Treatment in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus per National Treatment Guidelines for Germany: A Telephone-Survey-Based Analysis

“…We used the Scientific Use File of the nationwide telephone survey ‘Study on disease knowledge information needs-Diabetes mellitus (2017)’, which was conducted by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) between September and November 2017 in cooperation with the Office for National Education and Communication on Diabetes Mellitus of the Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA) and the Institute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin. The study design, objectives, and methods as well as results were described in detail elsewhere [ 27 ]. In brief, the objective of the telephone survey was to determine the perception of the risks associated with DM, information needs and information-seeking behavior, the personal burden of diabetes disease, and quality of care.…”

“…The first model was adjusted only for age and sex, the second model was additionally adjusted for education as a context variable known to be associated with PA behavior, and the third model was additionally adjusted for potentially modifiable risk factors for insufficient PA levels (BMI, smoking, and comorbidities). All analyses were performed using a weighting factor to account for potential deviations between the diabetic sample in the present study and the diabetic population obtained from the ‘German Health Update’ study (GEDA, 2012) in terms of sex, age, and education structure [ 27 ]. A p -value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.…”