4.5 Article

Effects of hypoglycemia on health-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction and healthcare resource utilization in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

期刊

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 91, 期 3, 页码 363-370

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.12.027

关键词

Oral antidiabetic; Health related quality of life; Treatment satisfaction; Diabetes mellitus

资金

  1. Consumer Health Sciences/KantarHealth, Princeton, NJ

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To quantify patient-reported rates of hypoglycemia and its association with health-related quality of life (HRQL), treatment satisfaction, and healthcare resource utilization. Methods: Data were collected from 2006 to 2008 US National Health and Wellness Survey and the Ailment Panel of Lightspeed Online Research, an internet-based questionnaire. Adults (>= 18 years) with type 2 diabetes taking >= 1 oral antidiabetic agent (OAD), but not insulin, were included (n = 2074). Multivariate analyses included logistic regression and generalized linear models. Results: Overall, patients who reported experiencing hypoglycemia symptoms (n = 286; 13.78%) were significantly more likely to have a lower HRQL on several parameters including: increased limitations on mobility (b = 0.66, OR = 1.93, p < 0.0001) and usual activities (b = 0.58, OR = 1.78, p < 0.0001), increased pain/discomfort (b = 0.69, OR = 2.00, p < 0.0001) and anxiety/depression (b = 0.84, OR = 2.31, p < 0.0001). They also had a lower total treatment satisfaction score as measured by the DiabMedSat tool (b = -7.66, p < 0.0001). Self-reported rates of diabetes-related emergency room (b = 0.98, p = 0.004) and physician visits (b = 0.30, p < 0.0001) were also higher among these patients. Conclusion: Among OAD-treated type 2 diabetes patients, symptoms of hypoglycemia tend to be correlated with significantly lower HRQL, lower treatment satisfaction and higher levels of healthcare resource utilization. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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