Feasibility and effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose among insulin-dependent patients with type 2 diabetes: open randomized control trial in three rural districts in Rwanda.
Diabetes Mellitus
Feasibility
Glycemic control
Self-monitoring of blood glucose
Sub-Saharan Africa
Journal
BMC endocrine disorders
ISSN: 1472-6823
Titre abrégé: BMC Endocr Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Oct 2022
08 Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
04
05
2022
accepted:
21
09
2022
entrez:
8
10
2022
pubmed:
9
10
2022
medline:
12
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in sub Saharan Africa (SSA) has been on the rise. Effective control of blood glucose is key towards reducing the risk of diabetes complications. Findings mainly from high-income countries have demonstrated the effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood-glucose (SMBG) in controlling blood glucose levels. However, there are limited studies describing the implementation of SMBG in rural SSA. This study explores the feasibility and effectiveness of implementing SMBG among patients diagnosed with insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes in rural Rwanda. Participants were randomized into intervention (n = 42) and control (n = 38) groups. The intervention group received a glucose-meter, blood test-strips, log-book, waste management box and training on SMBG in addition to usual care. The control group continued with their usual care consisting of, routine monthly medical consultation and health education. The primary outcomes were adherence to the implementation of SMBG (testing schedule and recording data in the log-book) and change in hemoglobin A1c. Descriptive statistics and a paired t-test were used to analyze the primary outcomes. In both the intervention and control arms, majority of the participants were female (59.5% vs 52.6%) and married (71.4% vs 73.7%). Most had at most a primary level education (83.3% vs. 89.4%) and were farmers (54.8% vs. 50.0%). Among those in the intervention group, 63.4% showed good adherence to implementing SMBG based on the number of tests recorded in the glucose meter. Only 20.3% demonstrated accurate recording of the glucose level tests in log-books. The mean difference of the HbA1C from baseline to six months post-intervention was significantly better among the intervention group -0.94% (95% CI -1.46, -0.41) compared to the control group 0.73% (95% CI -0.09, 1.54) p < 0.001. Our study showed that among patients with insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes residing in rural Rwanda, SMBG was feasible and demonstrated positive outcomes in improving blood glucose control. However, there is need for strategies to enhance accuracy in recording blood glucose test results in the log-book. The trial was registered retrospectively on the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, on 17
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in sub Saharan Africa (SSA) has been on the rise. Effective control of blood glucose is key towards reducing the risk of diabetes complications. Findings mainly from high-income countries have demonstrated the effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood-glucose (SMBG) in controlling blood glucose levels. However, there are limited studies describing the implementation of SMBG in rural SSA. This study explores the feasibility and effectiveness of implementing SMBG among patients diagnosed with insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes in rural Rwanda.
METHODS
METHODS
Participants were randomized into intervention (n = 42) and control (n = 38) groups. The intervention group received a glucose-meter, blood test-strips, log-book, waste management box and training on SMBG in addition to usual care. The control group continued with their usual care consisting of, routine monthly medical consultation and health education. The primary outcomes were adherence to the implementation of SMBG (testing schedule and recording data in the log-book) and change in hemoglobin A1c. Descriptive statistics and a paired t-test were used to analyze the primary outcomes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In both the intervention and control arms, majority of the participants were female (59.5% vs 52.6%) and married (71.4% vs 73.7%). Most had at most a primary level education (83.3% vs. 89.4%) and were farmers (54.8% vs. 50.0%). Among those in the intervention group, 63.4% showed good adherence to implementing SMBG based on the number of tests recorded in the glucose meter. Only 20.3% demonstrated accurate recording of the glucose level tests in log-books. The mean difference of the HbA1C from baseline to six months post-intervention was significantly better among the intervention group -0.94% (95% CI -1.46, -0.41) compared to the control group 0.73% (95% CI -0.09, 1.54) p < 0.001.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed that among patients with insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes residing in rural Rwanda, SMBG was feasible and demonstrated positive outcomes in improving blood glucose control. However, there is need for strategies to enhance accuracy in recording blood glucose test results in the log-book.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
The trial was registered retrospectively on the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, on 17
Identifiants
pubmed: 36209209
doi: 10.1186/s12902-022-01162-9
pii: 10.1186/s12902-022-01162-9
pmc: PMC9547423
doi:
Substances chimiques
Blood Glucose
0
Glycated Hemoglobin A
0
Hypoglycemic Agents
0
Insulin
0
Glucose
IY9XDZ35W2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
244Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Public Health. 2018 Sep 29;18(1):1148
pubmed: 30268115
Clin Diabetes. 2015 Jul;33(3):136-43
pubmed: 26203206
BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 27;10(7):e036202
pubmed: 32718924
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016 Feb;112:37-43
pubmed: 26655019
BMC Endocr Disord. 2017 Mar 24;17(1):20
pubmed: 28340613
Diabetes Care. 2003 Jun;26(6):1759-63
pubmed: 12766106
Diabetes Educ. 2004 Jan-Feb;30(1):112-25
pubmed: 14999899
BMC Health Serv Res. 2003 Mar 19;3(1):6
pubmed: 12659642
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014 Mar;103(3):538-40
pubmed: 24731476
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017 Apr 6;5(1):e000342
pubmed: 28611921
Trop Med Int Health. 2021 Aug;26(8):953-961
pubmed: 33892521
Lancet. 2010 Jun 26;375(9733):2254-66
pubmed: 20609971
BMC Res Notes. 2018 May 2;11(1):267
pubmed: 29720279
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015 Jun;3(6):402-403
pubmed: 26003752
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 May;2(5):e285-92
pubmed: 24818084
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009 Jun;11(6):385-92
pubmed: 19459768
J Diabetes Res. 2018 Feb 18;2018:9262395
pubmed: 29670916
Int J Diabetes Dev Ctries. 2008 Oct;28(4):101-8
pubmed: 20165596