4.5 Article

National physician survey on glycemic goals and medical decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 98, Issue 51, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018491

Keywords

glycemic control; individualization; medical decision making; physician; type 2 diabetes

Funding

  1. NIDDK [K23 DK092783, K24 DK105340]
  2. American Diabetes Association [1-18-JDF-037, 1-17-JDF-033]
  3. Pritzker School of Medicine
  4. CCDTR
  5. University of Chicago Biological Sciences Division

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To describe how patient characteristics influence physician decision-making about glycemic goals for Type 2 diabetes. 2016 survey of 357 US physicians. The survey included two vignettes, representing a healthy patient and an unhealthy patient, adapted from a past survey of international experts and a factorial design vignette that varied age, heart disease history, and hypoglycemia history. Survey results were weighted to provide national estimates. Over half (57.6%) of physicians recommended a goal HbA1c <7.0% for most of their patients. For the healthy patient vignette, physicians recommended a goal similar to that of international experts (<6.66% (95% Confidence Interval (CI), 6.61-6.71%) vs <6.5% (Interquartile range (IQR), 6.5-6.8%)). For the unhealthy patient, physicians recommended a lower goal than international experts (<7.38% (CI, 7.30-7.46) vs <8.0% (IQR, 7.5-8.0%)). In the factorial vignette, physicians varied HbA1c goals by 0.35%, 0.06%, and 0.28% based on age, heart disease history, and hypoglycemia risk, respectively. The goal HbA1c range between the 55year-old with no heart disease or hypoglycemic events and the 75-year-old with heart disease and hypoglycemic events was 0.65%. Despite guidelines that recommend HbA1c goals ranging from <6.5% to <8.5%, US physicians seem to be anchored on HbA1c goals around <7.0%.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available