Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics · 2004
Glucose self-monitoring in primary care: a survey of current practice.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stewart D, McCaig D, Davie A, Juroszek L, Blackwood L, Findlay N, McCarthy S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The role of long-term glycaemic control in minimizing long-term complications of diabetes mellitus is evidence-based and national guidelines recommend a target glycosylated haemoglobin level of approximately 7%. Although the role of self-monitoring blood and urine glucose is less well defined, this activity consumes vast National Health Service (NHS) resources.
AIMS: The aims of this study were to (i) determine the current practice of glucose self-monitoring in primary care, (ii) determine any changes to therapy made as a result and (iii) compare monitoring and frequency of monitoring in those patients using insulin with those patients taking oral hypoglycaemic agents.
METHODS: Postal questionnaire to 311 patients using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic agents identified from three general practices.
RESULTS: The response rate was 59.8% (186/311), with the majority of responding patients (n = 158, 87.3%) performing self-monitoring. The patients using insulin were more likely to be self-monitoring than those taking oral therapy (chi(2), P < 0.001, d.f. = 1). The majority of patients who self-monitored and were using insulin (n = 45, 61.1%) altered the dose of insulin if a reading was beyond their target range. However, the majority of patients who self-monitored and were taking oral therapy (n = 48, 68.6%) took no action at all.
CONCLUSIONS: Blood glucose self-monitoring was common in those treated with insulin or oral hypoglycaemics, although those using insulin were more likely to self-monitor. Notably many patients, particularly those on oral therapy, took no action based on the results of self-monitoring.
AIMS: The aims of this study were to (i) determine the current practice of glucose self-monitoring in primary care, (ii) determine any changes to therapy made as a result and (iii) compare monitoring and frequency of monitoring in those patients using insulin with those patients taking oral hypoglycaemic agents.
METHODS: Postal questionnaire to 311 patients using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic agents identified from three general practices.
RESULTS: The response rate was 59.8% (186/311), with the majority of responding patients (n = 158, 87.3%) performing self-monitoring. The patients using insulin were more likely to be self-monitoring than those taking oral therapy (chi(2), P < 0.001, d.f. = 1). The majority of patients who self-monitored and were using insulin (n = 45, 61.1%) altered the dose of insulin if a reading was beyond their target range. However, the majority of patients who self-monitored and were taking oral therapy (n = 48, 68.6%) took no action at all.
CONCLUSIONS: Blood glucose self-monitoring was common in those treated with insulin or oral hypoglycaemics, although those using insulin were more likely to self-monitor. Notably many patients, particularly those on oral therapy, took no action based on the results of self-monitoring.