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
  • Source
    • "In addition, patient engagement is particularly important in the management of high-risk diabetes patients[52]. However, shared decision-making that provides the amount and depth of information targeted to what is important to patients in support of meaningful patient-provider collaboration is time consuming and contributes to delays in the advancement and intensfication of treatment[53,54]. The development and use of health information using technology platforms, such as this PDA, is effective, acceptable to patients, and has the potential to provide the knowledge and confidence patients need to more fully participate in shared decision-making and become true partners in self-management and their future health. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) often have poor glycemic control on first-line pharmacologic therapy and require treatment intensification. Intensification decisions can be difficult because of many available options and their many benefits and risks. The American Diabetes Association recommends patient-centered, evidence-based tools supporting shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. We developed a patient decision aid (PDA) targeting decisions about treatment intensification for T2DM. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of this PDA for patients with T2DM on metformin who require treatment intensification. This study was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial conducted in 27 US primary care and endocrinology clinics. Subjects were English-speaking adults with T2DM receiving metformin with persistent hyperglycemia who were recommended to consider medication intensification. Subjects were randomized to receive either the PDA or usual care (UC). Main outcome measures were change in knowledge, decisional self-efficacy, and decisional conflict. Of 225 subjects enrolled, 114 were randomized to the PDA and 111 to UC. Mean [SD] age was 52 1 years, time since T2DM diagnosis was 6 [+/−6] years, 45.3 % were male, and most (55.5 %) were non-Caucasian. Compared to UC, PDA users had significantly larger knowledge gains (35.0 % [22.3] vs 9.9 % [22.2]; P < 0.0001) and larger improvements in self-efficacy (3.7 [16.7] vs−3.9 [19.2]; P < 0.0001) and decisional conflict (−22.2 [20.6] vs−7.5 [16.6]; P < 0.0001). The PDA resulted in substantial and significant improvements in knowledge, decisional conflict and decisional self-efficacy. Decisional conflict scores after PDA use were within the range that correlates with effective decision-making. This PDA has the potential to facilitate shared-decision-making for patients with T2DM. Trial registration
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2015 · BMC Health Services Research
  • [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.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2012 · Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

  • No preview · Article · Dec 2012 · North American Journal of Medical Sciences
Show more