Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2021
The poor quality of diabetes care in a cluster randomized community survey from Delhi (DEDICOM-II): A crisis, an opportunity.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Nagpal Jitender, Rawat Swapnil, Goyal Siddhi, Lata Anthikad S
Аннотация
AIMS: To evaluate the quality of care in known diabetes patients of Delhi.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a two-stage cluster design. In all, 30 of 150 wards were chosen in Stage 1 (using a random computer-generated seed value and then selecting wards at a predefined sampling interval; Probability Proportionate to Size-Systematic) and one colony from each ward was selected randomly in Stage 2. The selected areas were surveyed house-to-house in one-of-four random directions to recruit a minimum of 25 subjects (known diabetes ≥1 year; 35-65 years of age) per area. Data were collected by interview, blood sampling and from medical records by specifically trained research staff.
RESULTS: A total of 843 subjects (of 1315 eligible) were enrolled from 11,490 houses. For the intermediate outcome measures, an estimated 33.5% (95% CI 27.3-40.2) had an HbA1c value >10%, 67.2% (95% CI 62.8-71.4) had an LDL cholesterol level >100 mg/dl and 57.3% (95% CI 50.4-63.9) had BP levels >140/90 mmHg. For the processes of care in the last 1 year, 25.6% (95% CI 19.7-32.6) of the patients had an HbA1c (A1c) estimation and 2.4% (95% CI 1.1-4.9) had a dilated eye examination and 4.1% (95% CI 2.6-6.2) had foot examination. Diabetes self-management education was provided to only 11.3% (95% CI 8.6-14.7) while nutrition counselling was provided to 56.0% (95% CI 51.7-60.2).
CONCLUSIONS: The glycaemic control, lipid control and BP management of known diabetes patients in Delhi are unacceptably poor and a wide gap exists between practice recommendations and delivery of diabetes care in Delhi.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a two-stage cluster design. In all, 30 of 150 wards were chosen in Stage 1 (using a random computer-generated seed value and then selecting wards at a predefined sampling interval; Probability Proportionate to Size-Systematic) and one colony from each ward was selected randomly in Stage 2. The selected areas were surveyed house-to-house in one-of-four random directions to recruit a minimum of 25 subjects (known diabetes ≥1 year; 35-65 years of age) per area. Data were collected by interview, blood sampling and from medical records by specifically trained research staff.
RESULTS: A total of 843 subjects (of 1315 eligible) were enrolled from 11,490 houses. For the intermediate outcome measures, an estimated 33.5% (95% CI 27.3-40.2) had an HbA1c value >10%, 67.2% (95% CI 62.8-71.4) had an LDL cholesterol level >100 mg/dl and 57.3% (95% CI 50.4-63.9) had BP levels >140/90 mmHg. For the processes of care in the last 1 year, 25.6% (95% CI 19.7-32.6) of the patients had an HbA1c (A1c) estimation and 2.4% (95% CI 1.1-4.9) had a dilated eye examination and 4.1% (95% CI 2.6-6.2) had foot examination. Diabetes self-management education was provided to only 11.3% (95% CI 8.6-14.7) while nutrition counselling was provided to 56.0% (95% CI 51.7-60.2).
CONCLUSIONS: The glycaemic control, lipid control and BP management of known diabetes patients in Delhi are unacceptably poor and a wide gap exists between practice recommendations and delivery of diabetes care in Delhi.