4.4 Article

Adherence of self-monitoring of blood glucose in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden

Journal

BMJ OPEN DIABETES RESEARCH & CARE
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000342

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Region Vastra Gotaland
  2. Swedish State (ALF grant)
  3. Novo Nordisk Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The primary aim was to evaluate the extent to which persons with type 1 diabetes perform self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) according to guidelines. Secondary objectives were to investigate predictors for good SMBG adherence, reasons for non-adherence, and association between SMBG frequency and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Methods: This was a survey-based cross-sectional study. Questionnaires were sent out to 600 random patients at five sites. Patients were included if they were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and >= 18 years old and excluded if they were currently using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Analysis of data was performed separately for the three sites where the answer frequency was >= 70%. Results: In total, 138 of 314 study participants, 43.9% (95% CI 38.5% to 49.4%) performed SMBG >= 4 times per day. For the three clinics where >= 70% of surveyed patients were included in the analysis, results were similar, 41.3% (95% CI 34.7% to 47.8%). Top three reported reasons for not performing more frequent SMBG were lack of time, not remembering, and self-consciousness. Frequency of SMBG was associated with HbA1c levels (p<0.0001). 30% of patients believed that <= 3 SMBG/day was recommended by healthcare providers. Conclusions: Less than 50% of patients in Sweden follow guidelines of SMBG >= 4 times per day, despite glucose meters and strips being generally available at no cost. This indicates a need for further support in performing SMBG and increased availability of other tools for glucose monitoring.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available