Getting Under the Skin of Clinical Inertia in Insulin Initiation The Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) Insulin Starts Project

General Internal Medicine and UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations at San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, University of California, San Francisco, 1001 Potrero Avenue, Box 1364, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA.
The Diabetes Educator (Impact Factor: 1.79). 02/2012; 38(1):94-100. DOI: 10.1177/0145721711432649
Source: PubMed


The purpose of this cross-sectional study is to explore primary care providers' (PCPs) perceptions about barriers to initiating insulin among patients. Studies suggest that many patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes do not receive insulin initiation by PCPs.
As part of the Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes study, the authors conducted structured interviews in health systems in Indiana, New Jersey, and California, asking PCPs about the importance of insulin initiation and factors affecting this decision. The authors calculated proportions choosing each multiple-choice response option and listed the most frequently offered open-ended response categories.
Among 83 PCPs, 45% were women; 60% were white; and they averaged 13.4 years in practice. Four-fifths of PCPs endorsed guideline-concordant glycemic targets, but 54% individualized targets based on patient age, life expectancy, medical comorbidities, self-management capacity, and willingness. Most (64%) reported that many patients were resistant to new oral or insulin therapies due to fears about the therapy and what it meant about their disease progression. Two-thirds (64%) cited patient resistance as a barrier to insulin initiation, and 43% cited problems with patient self-management, including cognitive or mental health issues, dexterity, or ability to adhere. Eighty percent felt that patient nonadherence would dissuade them from initiating insulin at least some of the time.
PCPs perceived that patient resistance and poor self- management skills were significant barriers to initiating insulin. Future studies should investigate whether systems-level interventions to improve patient-provider communication about insulin and enhance providers' perceptions of patient self-management capacity can increase guideline-concordant, patient-centered insulin initiation.

Download full-text


Available from: David G Marrero, Aug 12, 2014
26 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: By the year 2030, the diabetes pandemic will likely affect more than 10% of the world's population. The personal, public health, and economic crises implicit in this trend call for decisive action. Yet, escalating dilemmas thwart full realization of current therapies. First, controversial studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Trial, have amplified calls to individualize glycated hemoglobin (A1C) targets in the absence of adequate infrastructures for supporting personalized care. Second, costlier medications and technologies addressing more nuanced aspects of metabolic dysfunction are expanding options for diabetes management amidst growing disparities between "affordable" and "best" care. Third, common clinical quandaries, such as discrepancies between A1C and self-monitoring of blood glucose data, as well as misconceptions about long-term glycemic assessment, compound entrenched cycles of inadequate self-care, delayed intervention, and suboptimal glycemic outcomes. Because individual, clinical, and public policy responses to these conflicting forces are based largely on methodologies for glucose measurement, a panel of clinical experts from Europe and North America was convened to reexamine our glucose measuring tools and determine ways in which they can be better applied toward more purposeful processes of glycemic management. Among the main issues addressed were the need for caution in interpreting A1C for individual patients, the role of alternative biomarkers in identifying aspects of glycemic dysregulation not captured by A1C, and the value of using patients' own glucose data to consolidate therapeutic, educational, and behavior-change objectives.
    Diabetes Technology &amp Therapeutics 10/2012; 14(11). DOI:10.1089/dia.2012.0132 · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • North American Journal of Medical Sciences 12/2012; 4(12):638-40. DOI:10.4103/1947-2714.104315
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Poor medication refill adherence contributes to poor cardiometabolic control and diabetes outcomes. Studies linking communication between patients and health care providers to adherence often use self-reported adherence and have not explored differences across communication domains or therapeutic indications. Methods: To investigate associations between patient communication ratings and cardiometabolic medication refill adherence, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 9377 patients in the Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE), a race-stratified, random sample of Kaiser Permanente survey respondents. Eligible participants received 1 or more oral hypoglycemic, lipid-lowering, or antihypertensive medication in the 12 months preceding the survey. Communication was measured with a 4-item Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey (CAHPS) score and 4 items from the Trust in Physicians and Interpersonal Processes of Care instruments. Poor adherence was classified as greater than a 20% continuous medication gap for ongoing medication therapies. Using modified least squares regression, we calculated differences in poor adherence prevalence for a 10-point decrease in CAHPS score and compared higher vs lower communication ratings on other items, adjusting for necessary sociodemographic and medical confounders derived from a directed acyclic graph. Results: In this cohort, 30% had poor cardiometabolic medication refill adherence. For each 10-point decrease in CAHPS score, the adjusted prevalence of poor adherence increased by 0.9% (P=.01). Compared with patients offering higher ratings, patients who gave health care providers lower ratings for involving patients in decisions, understanding patients' problems with treatment, and eliciting confidence and trust were more likely to have poor adherence, with absolute differences of 4% (P=.04), 5% (P=.02), and 6% (P=.03), respectively. Associations between communication and adherence were somewhat larger for hypoglycemic medications than for other medications. Conclusions: Poor communication ratings were independently associated with objectively measured inadequate cardiometabolic medication refill adherence, particularly for oral hypoglycemic medications. Future studies should investigate whether improving communication skills among clinicians with poorer patient communication ratings could improve their patients' cardiometabolic medication refill adherence and outcomes.
    Archives of internal medicine 12/2012; 173(3):1-9. DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1216 · 17.33 Impact Factor
Show more