3.8 Article

Evaluation of the Diabetes Regional Coordination Path using the Diabetes Coordination Notebook in community-based diabetes care

Journal

DIABETOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 188-197

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s13340-018-0379-6

Keywords

Questionnaire; Diabetes Coordination Notebook; Retinopathy; Periodontal disease; Diabetes Regional Coordination Path; Diabetic Eye Notebook

Funding

  1. Gifu Prefecture Medical Association

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimsA number of epidemiologic surveys have demonstrated that improving lifestyle habits, providing patient education, and regular screening of patients for early diabetic symptoms and complications through multidisciplinary collaboration are crucial for the management of diabetes.MethodsTo evaluate the Diabetes Coordination Notebook and the Diabetes Regional Coordination Path in management of diabetes, 217 community pharmacies conducted a survey by questionnaire in Gifu Prefecture, Japan.ResultsA reply to the questionnaire was obtained from 27,016 individuals, of whom 5,572 claimed to have diabetes or prediabetes. The rate of usage of the Diabetes Coordination Notebook and the Diabetes Regional Coordination Path was 40% and 7%, respectively. Interestingly, patients using the Diabetes Regional Coordination Path more frequently visited an ophthalmic clinic (p<0.001) and a dental clinic (p<0.05) than those not using it. Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that use of the Diabetes Regional Coordination Path was the only factor associated with control of HbA1c<7.0% (OR: 0.613, 95% CI: 0.395-0.951, p=0.029).ConclusionsThe usage of the Diabetes Regional Coordination Path together with the Diabetes Coordination Notebook is associated not only with regular visits to both an ophthalmic clinic and a dental clinic but also with the maintenance of appropriate HbA1c.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available