4.3 Article

Factors influencing insulin usage among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: A study in Turkish primary care

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 255-261

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13814788.2016.1230603

关键词

Family physician; educational status; insulin resistance; religion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: DM (diabetes mellitus) patients with poorly regulated blood glucose levels are at risk of increased morbidity and mortality. There are different factors that cause resistance to the initiation of insulin therapy such as beliefs and perceptions concerning diabetes and its treatment and the nature and consequences of insulin therapy. Objectives: We aimed to explore the reasons for this reluctance and how these obstacles could be overcome so that DM patients who require insulin could initiate therapy. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study of diabetic patients with glycated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1C)) levels above 7.0%, who were followed-up at a primary care and endocrinology outpatient clinic. Results: Ninety-four patients (57.4% females, 42.6% males) were recruited for this study. Most patients (57.4%) considered that insulin was a drug of last resort. Among all patients, 34.1% thought that insulin lowered blood glucose levels to an extreme degree and 14.9% disagreed. The patients thought that self-injection was hard (27.6%), required someone else to administer the injection (27.6%), insulin injection was painful (33.0%). 59.6% of all patients believed that their religion did not restrict the use of insulin, 52.1% stated that their family physicians had sufficiently informed them. Conclusion: Our most significant finding is that a lack of adequate information relating to insulin appears to be the major factor behind DM patients' refusal of insulin treatment. The fact that patients consider insulin treatment as a final solution to DM could be related to resistance to the initiation of insulin therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据