Menu
Back to Journals » Patient Preference and Adherence » Volume 13
A survey on glycemic control rate of type 2 diabetes mellitus with different therapies and patients’ satisfaction in China
Authors Dong Q, Huang J, Liu S, Yang L, Li J, Li B, Zhao X, Li Z, Wu L
Received 19 December 2018
Accepted for publication 19 June 2019
Published 31 July 2019 Volume 2019:13 Pages 1303—1310
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S198908
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Naifeng Liu
Qiaoliang Dong, Jin Huang, Shunying Liu, Lingfeng Yang, Juan Li, Bei Li, Xue Zhao, Zaizhao Li, Liaofang Wu
Clinical Nursing Teaching and Research Section, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province 410011, People’s Republic of China
Aim: To compare the blood glucose control of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with different treatment methods, oral hypoglycemic agents (OHA) monotherapy, insulin injection and combined therapy (OHA + insulin injection) and evaluate their satisfaction with the medical care.
Methods: A total of 1512 T2DM patients were assessed, to compare the effects of different treatment methods on glycemic control in T2DM patients, the influencing factors of patients’ satisfaction with medical care measures and their relationship with glycemic control. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2 hrs postprandial plasma glucose (2hPG) and HbA1c were measured as the standard of the glycemic control. Satisfaction was defined using the simplified version of DAWN of chronic disease care patient scale (PACIC - DSF).
Results: In this study, the FPG compliance rate, 2hPG compliance rate and HbA1c compliance rate were 25.5%, 22.7% and 19.5%, respectively. The differences in the glycemic control compliance rates of different treatment methods were not statistically significant. The total score of PACIC - DSF was 34.54±11.65(p>0.05), and the influencing factors included fast blood glucose (FBG) and 2hPG, 2hPG and PACIC - DSF were negatively correlated.
Conclusions: The T2DM glycemic control rate in China is currently low. From the score of the PACIC - DSF, there is no significant difference in general satisfaction with medical care measures in different treatments. What is more, education level, occupation and exercise of patients with type 2 diabetes had influence on PACIC - DSF score. Different treatment methods have no influence on the glycemic control of patients with T2DM. FPG value and the 2hPG value are negative correlation with the satisfaction of patients in medical care measures.
Keywords: type 2 diabetes mellitus, T2DM, glycemic control, PACIC - DSF
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License.
By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.