Glycaemic monitoring and control among high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes in Australian general practice during COVID-19.
COVID-19
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
General Practice
Obesity
Journal
Family medicine and community health
ISSN: 2009-8774
Titre abrégé: Fam Med Community Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101700650
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
medline:
14
8
2023
pubmed:
12
8
2023
entrez:
11
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted general practice worldwide, primarily due to public health measures that restricted access to care for chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes. These measures disproportionately affected higher risk groups with type 2 diabetes, such as older people and those with obesity. This study aims to identify factors that may have influenced the rates of compliance with testing guidelines and target glycaemic control in Australian general practice settings during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used a serial cross-sectional study design of patient record data from general practices representative of the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District between 2020 and 2022. Aggregated patient records were analysed to determine percentages of subgroups with a blood glycaemic testing interval consistent with guidelines (≥1 within 15 months) and achieving target glycaemic control (by glycated haemoglobin of ≤7%). Linear regression models were used to test the association between independent and dependent variables, and to generate regression coefficients and 95% CI, corrected for time trends. Of the average 14 356 patient records per month, 55% were male, 53% had a body mass index (BMI) <30 and 55% were aged 55-74 years. Compliance to testing guidelines slightly decreased (75-73%) but was positively associated with male sex (2.5%, 95% CI 1.7%, 3.4%), BMI≥30 (9.6%, 95% CI 8.8%, 10.4%) and 55-74 years (7.5%, 95% CI 6.6%, 8.5%) and 75 years and over age groups (7.1%, 95% CI 6.2%, 7.9%). Mean percentage of patient records achieving target glycaemic control slightly increased and was negatively associated with male sex (-3.7%, 95% CI -5.2%, -2.2%), but positively associated with 55-74 years (4.5%, 95% CI 3.8%, 5.1%) and 75 years and over age groups (12.2%, 95% CI 4.5%, 20.0%). Compliance to testing guidelines increased with each additional general practice per 10 000 persons (8.4%, 95% CI 4.9%, 11.8%). During the COVID-19 pandemic, people with type 2 diabetes in Australia continued to follow glycaemic testing guidelines at the same rate. In fact, there was a slight improvement in glycaemic control among all subgroups of patients, including those at higher risk. These findings are encouraging, but the longer term impact of COVID-19 on type 2 diabetes care is still unclear.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted general practice worldwide, primarily due to public health measures that restricted access to care for chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes. These measures disproportionately affected higher risk groups with type 2 diabetes, such as older people and those with obesity. This study aims to identify factors that may have influenced the rates of compliance with testing guidelines and target glycaemic control in Australian general practice settings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS
We used a serial cross-sectional study design of patient record data from general practices representative of the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District between 2020 and 2022. Aggregated patient records were analysed to determine percentages of subgroups with a blood glycaemic testing interval consistent with guidelines (≥1 within 15 months) and achieving target glycaemic control (by glycated haemoglobin of ≤7%). Linear regression models were used to test the association between independent and dependent variables, and to generate regression coefficients and 95% CI, corrected for time trends.
RESULTS
Of the average 14 356 patient records per month, 55% were male, 53% had a body mass index (BMI) <30 and 55% were aged 55-74 years. Compliance to testing guidelines slightly decreased (75-73%) but was positively associated with male sex (2.5%, 95% CI 1.7%, 3.4%), BMI≥30 (9.6%, 95% CI 8.8%, 10.4%) and 55-74 years (7.5%, 95% CI 6.6%, 8.5%) and 75 years and over age groups (7.1%, 95% CI 6.2%, 7.9%). Mean percentage of patient records achieving target glycaemic control slightly increased and was negatively associated with male sex (-3.7%, 95% CI -5.2%, -2.2%), but positively associated with 55-74 years (4.5%, 95% CI 3.8%, 5.1%) and 75 years and over age groups (12.2%, 95% CI 4.5%, 20.0%). Compliance to testing guidelines increased with each additional general practice per 10 000 persons (8.4%, 95% CI 4.9%, 11.8%).
CONCLUSIONS
During the COVID-19 pandemic, people with type 2 diabetes in Australia continued to follow glycaemic testing guidelines at the same rate. In fact, there was a slight improvement in glycaemic control among all subgroups of patients, including those at higher risk. These findings are encouraging, but the longer term impact of COVID-19 on type 2 diabetes care is still unclear.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37567729
pii: fmch-2023-002271
doi: 10.1136/fmch-2023-002271
pmc: PMC10423797
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
BMC Fam Pract. 2021 Jun 23;22(1):125
pubmed: 34162343
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022 Sep;24(9):1850-1860
pubmed: 35603919
Curr Dev Nutr. 2022 Apr 08;6(4):nzac011
pubmed: 35415391
Obes Rev. 2009 Sep;10(5):543-53
pubmed: 19413699
Sci Rep. 2019 Jul 15;9(1):10248
pubmed: 31308457
Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 8;10(1):14790
pubmed: 32901098
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Oct 12;18(20):
pubmed: 34682432
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021 Apr;9(4):203-211
pubmed: 33636102
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2021 May 7;20(1):99
pubmed: 33962629
Prim Care Diabetes. 2011 Dec;5(4):251-5
pubmed: 21782539
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022 Dec;10(12):890-900
pubmed: 36356612
Curr Diabetes Rev. 2020;16(5):442-449
pubmed: 31657690
Acta Diabetol. 2023 Jun;60(6):787-795
pubmed: 36894712
Biomedicines. 2020 Oct 30;8(11):
pubmed: 33143053
Can J Cardiol. 2018 May;34(5):575-584
pubmed: 29459239
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Dec 1;22(12):e24087
pubmed: 33147166
Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020 Nov-Dec;14(6):1963-1966
pubmed: 33059299
Aust J Gen Pract. 2018 May;47(5):289-296
pubmed: 29779298
Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2021 Sep-Oct;15(5):102235
pubmed: 34384972
Aust Health Rev. 2020 Sep;44(5):737-740
pubmed: 32853536
Diabetologia. 2020 Nov;63(11):2486-2487
pubmed: 32632527
Front Health Serv. 2022 Apr 06;2:832116
pubmed: 36925785
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2022 Apr;26(7):2415-2421
pubmed: 35442496
Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2021 Sep 7;13(1):95
pubmed: 34493317
Br J Gen Pract. 2021 Feb 25;71(704):e166-e177
pubmed: 33558332
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:120065
pubmed: 23017247
Diabetes Metab J. 2021 Sep;45(5):765-772
pubmed: 34461683
Int J Public Health. 2018 Mar;63(2):193-202
pubmed: 29372287
BMC Public Health. 2020 Aug 1;20(1):1193
pubmed: 32738884
Diabetologia. 2013 Dec;56(12):2549-51
pubmed: 24092493
Diabetologia. 2020 Mar;63(3):453-461
pubmed: 31754750
PLoS Med. 2021 Nov 23;18(11):e1003854
pubmed: 34813591