Dataset Information

Differences in the management of type 1 diabetes among adults under excellent control compared with those under poor control in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Optimizing glycemic control in type 1 diabetes is important to minimize the risk of complications. We used the large T1D Exchange clinic registry database to identify characteristics and diabetes management techniques in adults with type 1 diabetes, differentiating those under excellent glycemic control from those with poorer control.

Research design and methods

The cross-sectional analysis included 627 participants with HbA1c <6.5% (excellent control) and 1,267 with HbA1c ≥8.5% (fair/poor control) at enrollment who were ≥26 years of age (mean ± SD 45.9 ± 13.2 years), were not using continuous glucose monitoring, and had type 1 diabetes for ≥2 years (22.8 ± 13.0 years).

Results

Compared with the fair/poor control group, participants in the excellent control group had higher socioeconomic status, were more likely to be older and married, were less likely to be overweight, were more likely to exercise frequently, and had lower total daily insulin dose per kilogram (P < 0.0001 for each). Excellent control was associated with more frequent self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), giving mealtime boluses before a meal rather than at the time of or after a meal, performing SMBG before giving a bolus, and missing an insulin dose less frequently (P < 0.0001 for each). Frequency of severe hypoglycemia was similar between groups, whereas diabetic ketoacidosis was more common in the fair/poor control group.

Conclusions

Diabetes self-management related to insulin delivery, glucose monitoring, and lifestyle tends to differ among adults with type 1 diabetes under excellent control compared with those under poorer control. Future studies should focus on modifying diabetes management skills in adult type 1 diabetes patients with suboptimal glycemic control.

SUBMITTER: Simmons JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3816911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Norwegian Trauma Registry (NTR) is designed to monitor and improve the quality and outcome of trauma care delivered by Norwegian trauma hospitals. Patient care is evaluated through specific quality indicators, which are constructed of variables reported to the registry by certified registrars. Having high-quality data recorded in the registry is essential for the validity, trust and use of data. This study aims to perform a data quality check of a subset of core data elements in the registry by assessing agreement between data in the NTR and corresponding data in electronic patient records (EPRs).MethodsWe validated 49 of the 118 variables registered in the NTR by comparing those with the corresponding ones in electronic patient records for 180 patients with a trauma diagnosis admitted in 2019 at eight public hospitals. Agreement was quantified by calculating observed agreement, Cohen's Kappa and Gwet's first agreement coefficient (AC1) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 27 nominal variables, quadratic weighted Cohen's Kappa and Gwet's second agreement coefficient (AC2) for five ordinal variables. For nine continuous, one date and seven time variables, we calculated intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsAlmost perfect agreement (AC1 /AC2/ ICC > 0.80) was observed for all examined variables. Nominal and ordinal variables showed Gwet's agreement coefficients ranging from 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79-0.91) to 1.00 (95% CI: 1.00-1.00). For continuous and time variables there were detected high values of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83-0.91) and 1.00 (CI 95%: 1.00-1.00). While missing values in both the NTR and EPRs were in general negligeable, we found a substantial amount of missing registrations for a continuous "Base excess" in the NTR. For some of the time variables missing values both in the NTR and EPRs were high.ConclusionAll tested variables in the Norwegian Trauma Registry displayed excellent agreement with the corresponding variables in electronic patient records. Variables in the registry that showed missing data need further examination.