Association between nutritional guidance or ophthalmological examination and discontinuation of physician visits in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes: A retrospective cohort study using a nationwide database.
Adult
Databases, Factual
Diabetes Mellitus
/ diagnosis
Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Guideline Adherence
Humans
Life Style
Male
Middle Aged
Nutritional Support
Office Visits
/ statistics & numerical data
Ophthalmology
Physicians' Offices
/ statistics & numerical data
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
Adherence
Clinical epidemiology
Nutrition guidance
Journal
Journal of diabetes investigation
ISSN: 2040-1124
Titre abrégé: J Diabetes Investig
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101520702
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
revised:
12
01
2021
received:
19
11
2020
accepted:
14
01
2021
pubmed:
19
1
2021
medline:
27
1
2022
entrez:
18
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Discontinuation of diabetes care has been studied mostly in patients with prevalent diabetes and not in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes, whose dropout risk is highest. Because enrolling patients in a prospective study will influence adherence, we retrospectively examined whether guideline-recommended practices, defined as nutritional guidance or ophthalmological examination, can prevent patient discontinuation of diabetes care after its initiation. We retrospectively identified adults with newly screened diabetes during checkups using a large Japanese administrative claims database (JMDC, Tokyo, Japan) that contains laboratory data and lifestyle questionnaires. We defined discontinuation of physician visits as a follow-up interval exceeding 6 months. We divided the patients into those who received guideline-recommended practices (nutritional guidance or ophthalmology consultation) within the same month as the first visit and those who did not. We calculated propensity scores and carried out inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses to compare discontinuation between the two groups. We identified 6,508 patients with at least one physician consultation for diabetes care within 3 months after their checkup, including 4,574 patients without and 1,934 with guideline-recommended practices. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients with guideline-recommended practices had a significantly lower proportion of discontinuation than those without (17.2% vs 21.8%; relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.91). This study is the first to show that after adjustment for both patient and healthcare provider factors, guideline-recommended practices within the first month of physician consultation for diabetes care can decrease subsequent discontinuation of physician visits in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33459533
doi: 10.1111/jdi.13510
pmc: PMC8409872
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1619-1631Subventions
Organisme : Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan
ID : 19AA2007
Organisme : Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
ID : 20K18957
Organisme : Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
ID : 20H03907
Organisme : Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
ID : 17H05077
Organisme : Japan Diabetes Society
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
Stata J. 2014 Oct 1;14(4):863-883
pubmed: 25642154
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1345-1422
pubmed: 28919119
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019 Sep;155:107750
pubmed: 31229599
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020 Nov;8(2):
pubmed: 33188008
J Diabetes Investig. 2018 Mar 26;:
pubmed: 29582574
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017 Jul 31;5(1):e000333
pubmed: 28878930
Curr Diabetes Rev. 2015;11(2):122-31
pubmed: 25619541
Fam Pract. 2017 Sep 1;34(5):552-557
pubmed: 28369304
BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 26;9(7):e029641
pubmed: 31350250
Epidemiology. 2016 Jan;27(1):91-7
pubmed: 26484424
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 Nov 1;134(11):1221-1228
pubmed: 27632231
Diabetes Care. 2000 Dec;23(12):1791-3
pubmed: 11128354
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013 Sep 1;6(5):604-11
pubmed: 24021692
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Aug 23;19(1):598
pubmed: 31443649
BMC Public Health. 2016 Sep 02;16:922
pubmed: 27590634
Diabetol Int. 2020 Jul 24;11(3):165-223
pubmed: 32802702
Stat Methods Med Res. 2019 Jan;28(1):3-19
pubmed: 28573919
Singapore Med J. 2019 May;60(5):216-223
pubmed: 31187148
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 14;9(8):e103090
pubmed: 25121589
Int J Obes (Lond). 2005 Jan;29(1):122-8
pubmed: 15545976
BMJ. 2009 Jun 29;338:b2393
pubmed: 19564179
Diabetes Care. 2019 May;42(5):731-754
pubmed: 31000505
Stat Med. 2015 Dec 10;34(28):3661-79
pubmed: 26238958
Postgrad Med. 2016 May;128(4):338-45
pubmed: 26849064
Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Apr;15(2):144
pubmed: 21731880
Diabetes Care. 2017 Nov;40(11):1588-1596
pubmed: 28801474
Eur Heart J. 2013 Oct;34(39):3035-87
pubmed: 23996285
Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan;42(Suppl 1):S34-S45
pubmed: 30559230
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1994 Jul;24(3):181-5
pubmed: 7988350
Epidemiology. 2000 Sep;11(5):550-60
pubmed: 10955408
Arch Intern Med. 2001 Apr 23;161(8):1106-12
pubmed: 11322845
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Jan 10;12:8
pubmed: 22233930
Diabetes Care. 1992 Nov;15(11):1477-83
pubmed: 1468274
Environ Health Prev Med. 2006 May;11(3):115-9
pubmed: 21432385
Prev Chronic Dis. 2004 Oct;1(4):A10
pubmed: 15670442