For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
47
views
10
references
 Top references
cited by
79
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      170
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Barriers to Insulin Initiation : The Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes Insulin Starts Project

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          OBJECTIVE

          Reasons for failing to initiate prescribed insulin (primary nonadherence) are poorly understood. We investigated barriers to insulin initiation following a new prescription.

          RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

          We surveyed insulin-naïve patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, already treated with two or more oral agents who were recently prescribed insulin. We compared responses for respondents prescribed, but never initiating, insulin ( n = 69) with those dispensed insulin ( n = 100).

          RESULTS

          Subjects failing to initiate prescribed insulin commonly reported misconceptions regarding insulin risk (35% believed that insulin causes blindness, renal failure, amputations, heart attacks, strokes, or early death), plans to instead work harder on behavioral goals, sense of personal failure, low self-efficacy, injection phobia, hypoglycemia concerns, negative impact on social life and job, inadequate health literacy, health care provider inadequately explaining risks/benefits, and limited insulin self-management training.

          CONCLUSIONS

          Primary adherence for insulin may be improved through better provider communication regarding risks, shared decision making, and insulin self-management training.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

          Lisa Chew, Katharine A Bradley, Edward Boyko (2004)
          No practical method for identifying patients with low heath literacy exists. We sought to develop screening questions for identifying patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy. Patients (n=332) at a VA preoperative clinic completed in-person interviews that included 16 health literacy screening questions on a 5-point Likert scale, followed by a validated health literacy measure, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOHFLA). Based on the STOFHLA, patients were classified as having either inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy. Each of the 16 screening questions was evaluated and compared to two comparison standards: (1) inadequate health literacy and (2) inadequate or marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Fifteen participants (4.5%) had inadequate health literacy and 25 (7.5%) had marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Three of the screening questions, "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?" and "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?" were effective in detecting inadequate health literacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively). These questions were weaker for identifying patients with marginal health literacy. Three questions were each effective screening tests for inadequate health literacy in this population.
          Article 0 comments Cited 525 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Glycemic control with diet, sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: progressive requirement for multiple therapies (UKPDS 49). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group.

            R C Turner, C A Cull, V Frighi … (1999)
            Treatment with diet alone, insulin, sulfonylurea, or metformin is known to improve glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but which treatment most frequently attains target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentration of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) or glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) below 7% is unknown. To assess how often each therapy can achieve the glycemic control target levels set by the American Diabetes Association. Randomized controlled trial conducted between 1977 and 1997. Patients were recruited between 1977 and 1991 and were followed up every 3 months for 3, 6, and 9 years after enrollment. Outpatient diabetes clinics in 15 UK hospitals. A total of 4075 patients newly diagnosed as having type 2 diabetes ranged in age between 25 and 65 years and had a median (interquartile range) FPG concentration of 11.5 (9.0-14.4) mmol/L [207 (162-259) mg/dL], HbA1c levels of 9.1% (7.5%-10.7%), and a mean (SD) body mass index of 29 (6) kg/m2. After 3 months on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate, high-fiber diet, patients were randomized to therapy with diet alone, insulin, sulfonylurea, or metformin. Fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c levels, and the proportion of patients who achieved target levels below 7% HbA1c or less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) FPG at 3, 6, or 9 years following diagnosis. The proportion of patients who maintained target glycemic levels declined markedly over 9 years of follow-up. After 9 years of monotherapy with diet, insulin, or sulfonylurea, 8%, 42%, and 24%, respectively, achieved FPG levels of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) and 9%, 28%, and 24% achieved HbA1c levels below 7%. In obese patients randomized to metformin, 18% attained FPG levels of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) and 13% attained HbA1c levels below 7%. Patients less likely to achieve target levels were younger, more obese, or more hyperglycemic than other patients. Each therapeutic agent, as monotherapy, increased 2- to 3-fold the proportion of patients who attained HbA1c below 7% compared with diet alone. However, the progressive deterioration of diabetes control was such that after 3 years approximately 50% of patients could attain this goal with monotherapy, and by 9 years this declined to approximately 25%. The majority of patients need multiple therapies to attain these glycemic target levels in the longer term.
            Article 0 comments Cited 329 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Addition of biphasic, prandial, or basal insulin to oral therapy in type 2 diabetes.

              Rury R Holman, Kerensa I. Thorne, Andrew J Farmer … (2007)
              Adding insulin to oral therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus is customary when glycemic control is suboptimal, though evidence supporting specific insulin regimens is limited. In an open-label, controlled, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 708 patients with a suboptimal glycated hemoglobin level (7.0 to 10.0%) who were receiving maximally tolerated doses of metformin and sulfonylurea to receive biphasic insulin aspart twice daily, prandial insulin aspart three times daily, or basal insulin detemir once daily (twice if required). Outcome measures at 1 year were the mean glycated hemoglobin level, the proportion of patients with a glycated hemoglobin level of 6.5% or less, the rate of hypoglycemia, and weight gain. At 1 year, mean glycated hemoglobin levels were similar in the biphasic group (7.3%) and the prandial group (7.2%) (P=0.08) but higher in the basal group (7.6%, P<0.001 for both comparisons). The respective proportions of patients with a glycated hemoglobin level of 6.5% or less were 17.0%, 23.9%, and 8.1%; respective mean numbers of hypoglycemic events per patient per year were 5.7, 12.0, and 2.3; and respective mean weight gains were 4.7 kg, 5.7 kg, and 1.9 kg. Rates of adverse events were similar among the three groups. A single analogue-insulin formulation added to metformin and sulfonylurea resulted in a glycated hemoglobin level of 6.5% or less in a minority of patients at 1 year. The addition of biphasic or prandial insulin aspart reduced levels more than the addition of basal insulin detemir but was associated with greater risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51125379 [controlled-trials.com].). Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Article 0 comments Cited 173 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Diabetes Care
                Journal ID (hwp): diacare
                Journal ID (pmc): dcare
                Journal ID (publisher-id): Diabetes Care
                Title: Diabetes Care
                Publisher: American Diabetes Association
                ISSN (Print): 0149-5992
                ISSN (Electronic): 1935-5548
                Publication date (Print): April 2010
                Publication date (Electronic): 19 January 2010
                Volume: 33
                Issue: 4
                Pages: 733-735
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California;
                [2] 2School of Public Health & Community Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington;
                [3] 3Roudebush VA Medical Center and Division of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana;
                [4] 4Division of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana;
                [5] 5Research Division, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey–Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Somerset, New Jersey;
                [6] 6Diabetes Translational Research Center, Division of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Andrew J. Karter, andy.j.karter@ 123456kp.org .
                Article
                Publisher ID: 1184
                DOI: 10.2337/dc09-1184
                PMC ID: 2845015
                PubMed ID: 20086256
                SO-VID: 038a9769-e5a7-491c-b300-8afbe5d2e3f1
                Copyright © © 2010 by the American Diabetes Association.
                License:

                Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.

                History
                Date received : 20 June 2009
                Date accepted : 6 January 2009
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health
                Award ID: R01 DK065664
                Award ID: R01 DK080726
                Award ID: RC1 DK086178
                Categories
                Subject: Original Research
                Subject: Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition/Psychosocial Research

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Endocrinology & Diabetes
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Endocrinology & Diabetes

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content170

                See all similar

                Cited by78

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors698

                See all reference authors