对1型糖尿病慢性糖尿病并发症筛查的影响

Rashida R Dorsey, Thomas J Songer, Janice C Zgibor, Trevor J Orchard
{"title":"对1型糖尿病慢性糖尿病并发症筛查的影响","authors":"Rashida R Dorsey,&nbsp;Thomas J Songer,&nbsp;Janice C Zgibor,&nbsp;Trevor J Orchard","doi":"10.1089/dis.2006.9.93","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Screening for the long-term complications of diabetes is a critical component of diabetes management; however, evidence demonstrates that screening rates in diabetes populations are suboptimal. Our objective was to determine the use and predictors of optimal screening behavior, defined as receiving a fasting lipid test, dilated eye exam, spot urine test, foot examination, blood pressure reading, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the previous year in a representative cohort of subjects with type 1 diabetes. Data are from the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study, a prospective cohort study of subjects with childhood onset type 1 diabetes. Data from 325 participants who responded to a survey during 1999-2001 were included in analyses. Reported screening rates were as follows: 87.9% had at least one HbA1c measurement in the past year, 63% had a foot exam, 73.3% had a spot urine test, 81.9% had a dilated eye exam, 93.5% had a blood pressure reading and 68.7% received a fasting lipid profile. Within this group, 37.7% of subjects reported undergoing all five tests (optimal screening). Independent correlates of optimal screening were receiving care from a specialist provider (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-4.1) and blood glucose monitoring at least weekly (OR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.1-6.2). These findings indicate that a large proportion of persons with type 1 diabetes are not being screened at the optimal level. Our data indicate that efforts to rectify this should focus on men and those who do not monitor blood glucose, and should involve primary care practitioners.</p>","PeriodicalId":51235,"journal":{"name":"Disease Management : Dm","volume":"9 2","pages":"93-101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2006.9.93","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influences on screening for chronic diabetes complications in type 1 diabetes.\",\"authors\":\"Rashida R Dorsey,&nbsp;Thomas J Songer,&nbsp;Janice C Zgibor,&nbsp;Trevor J Orchard\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/dis.2006.9.93\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Screening for the long-term complications of diabetes is a critical component of diabetes management; however, evidence demonstrates that screening rates in diabetes populations are suboptimal. Our objective was to determine the use and predictors of optimal screening behavior, defined as receiving a fasting lipid test, dilated eye exam, spot urine test, foot examination, blood pressure reading, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the previous year in a representative cohort of subjects with type 1 diabetes. Data are from the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study, a prospective cohort study of subjects with childhood onset type 1 diabetes. Data from 325 participants who responded to a survey during 1999-2001 were included in analyses. Reported screening rates were as follows: 87.9% had at least one HbA1c measurement in the past year, 63% had a foot exam, 73.3% had a spot urine test, 81.9% had a dilated eye exam, 93.5% had a blood pressure reading and 68.7% received a fasting lipid profile. Within this group, 37.7% of subjects reported undergoing all five tests (optimal screening). Independent correlates of optimal screening were receiving care from a specialist provider (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-4.1) and blood glucose monitoring at least weekly (OR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.1-6.2). These findings indicate that a large proportion of persons with type 1 diabetes are not being screened at the optimal level. Our data indicate that efforts to rectify this should focus on men and those who do not monitor blood glucose, and should involve primary care practitioners.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51235,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disease Management : Dm\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"93-101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/dis.2006.9.93\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Disease Management : Dm\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2006.9.93\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disease Management : Dm","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dis.2006.9.93","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

筛查糖尿病的长期并发症是糖尿病管理的重要组成部分;然而,有证据表明,糖尿病人群的筛查率并不理想。我们的目的是确定最佳筛查行为的使用和预测因素,定义为在前一年接受空腹脂质测试、扩张性眼科检查、尿样检查、足部检查、血压读数和血红蛋白A1c (HbA1c)。数据来自匹兹堡糖尿病并发症流行病学研究,这是一项针对儿童期发病1型糖尿病患者的前瞻性队列研究。在1999年至2001年期间,325名参与调查的人的数据被纳入分析。报告的筛查率如下:87.9%的人在过去一年中至少做过一次糖化血红蛋白检测,63%做过足部检查,73.3%做过尿检,81.9%做过散瞳检查,93.5%做过血压检查,68.7%做过空腹血脂检查。在该组中,37.7%的受试者报告接受了所有五项测试(最佳筛选)。最佳筛查的独立相关因素是接受专业提供者的护理(优势比[OR] = 2.4;95%可信区间[CI]: 1.4-4.1)和至少每周监测血糖(OR = 2.6;95% ci: 1.1-6.2)。这些发现表明,很大一部分1型糖尿病患者没有得到最佳水平的筛查。我们的数据表明,纠正这一问题的努力应该集中在男性和那些不监测血糖的人身上,并且应该让初级保健医生参与进来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Influences on screening for chronic diabetes complications in type 1 diabetes.

Screening for the long-term complications of diabetes is a critical component of diabetes management; however, evidence demonstrates that screening rates in diabetes populations are suboptimal. Our objective was to determine the use and predictors of optimal screening behavior, defined as receiving a fasting lipid test, dilated eye exam, spot urine test, foot examination, blood pressure reading, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the previous year in a representative cohort of subjects with type 1 diabetes. Data are from the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study, a prospective cohort study of subjects with childhood onset type 1 diabetes. Data from 325 participants who responded to a survey during 1999-2001 were included in analyses. Reported screening rates were as follows: 87.9% had at least one HbA1c measurement in the past year, 63% had a foot exam, 73.3% had a spot urine test, 81.9% had a dilated eye exam, 93.5% had a blood pressure reading and 68.7% received a fasting lipid profile. Within this group, 37.7% of subjects reported undergoing all five tests (optimal screening). Independent correlates of optimal screening were receiving care from a specialist provider (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-4.1) and blood glucose monitoring at least weekly (OR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.1-6.2). These findings indicate that a large proportion of persons with type 1 diabetes are not being screened at the optimal level. Our data indicate that efforts to rectify this should focus on men and those who do not monitor blood glucose, and should involve primary care practitioners.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Improving medication adherence with a targeted, technology-driven disease management intervention. Weight loss and maintenance outcomes using moderate and severe caloric restriction in an outpatient setting. Where we've gone wrong. Disease management programs for the underserved. Co-occurring mental illness and health care utilization and expenditures in adults with obesity and chronic physical illness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1