4.2 Article

The impact of diabetes education on blood glucose self-monitoring among older adults

Journal

JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 790-793

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01195.x

Keywords

diabetes education centres; effectiveness of interventions; glucose self-monitoring; older adults; population-based research

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. Canadian Diabetes Association
  3. Banting and Best Diabetes Centre at the University of Toronto
  4. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To determine whether attending diabetes education is associated with blood glucose self-monitoring among unselected older adults in routine clinical care. Method A cross-sectional population-based study was carried out on 15 190 people with diabetes aged 65-79 years. Subjects were identified using a registry of doctor-diagnosed diabetes derived from administrative data, and attendance at diabetes education centres (DECs) was determined from a separate registry of DEC utilization for 2006. Outcomes were derived using administrative data. The primary outcome was prescriptions filled for glucose self-monitoring supplies. The secondary outcomes were prescriptions for antihypertensive drugs, prescriptions for lipid-lowering drugs and eye examinations. Results DEC attendance was associated with glucose self-monitoring, after adjusting for baseline differences between attendees and non-attendees (adjusted odds ratio 6.45, 95% confidence interval 5.61 to 7.42). All of the secondary outcomes were also independently associated with DEC attendance. Conclusions This study suggests that diabetes education is associated with self-management behaviour in real-world clinical care. These findings support the effectiveness of self-management education programmes to increase self-care behaviours.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available